With the release of the Mask of Sanity in the 1940s Dr. Hervey Cleckley began the quest to describe a syndrome called psychopathy, in which affected individuals prey on others without remorse. Since people affected by the syndrome are socially disordered the syndrome has also been called sociopathy. Dr. Robert Hare extended the work of Cleckley and carefully documented the symptoms of the disorder. All this research has lead to two basic conclusions:
1. It is quite remarkable that individuals who choose a lifestyle of remorseless predation of other people are so similar in their behaviors and personality traits.
2. Equally important is the idea that non-disordered people do not “regularly” prey on others.
These two very profound conclusions have been the cause of a dilemma that is outlined by the following statement by a prominent psychopathy researcher:
Clearly, not all people who are violent or callous or sadistic are psychopathic. In fact, it is probably the case that most of the cruelty in the world is not perpetrated by psychopathic individuals. Similarly, although psychopaths commit a disproportionate share of the violent crime, it seems to me that they do not commit even the majority of the violent crime.
Over the last two weeks I have thought about the above dilemma, particularly since attending the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. The dilemma was also discussed at the conference in the form of questioning whether “all batters are psychopaths/sociopaths.” I want to answer this question for you in and extend the answer to the broader context of psychopathy/sociopathy and humanity.
All though I have the utmost respect for the quoted psychopathy researcher, I disagree strongly with his views. I believe that ALL people who are violent, callous or sadistic (in the sense that these traits persist in them) are psychopathic.
Over the last 7 years a number of studies show that the group of traits and behaviors that group together in psychopathy act like a “dimensional trait.” By dimensional trait I mean that psychopathy is similar to height. Just as there are short people and tall people and also what we consider short and tall changes according to age, gender and geography, there are people who are more or less psychopathic. The dilemma only happens when we attempt to categorize a person and call him or her “a psychopath/sociopath.” Scientists and mental health professionals disagree about where to draw the dividing line to indicate “a psychopath,” just like you and I might disagree as to what height makes for a “tall person.”
The dimension, psychopathic is also different from height in a very important respect- that is stability. Whereas height is very stable, psychopathy is only relatively stable and is affected by aging, mood disorders, substance abuse and social environment.
Now I want to explain the source of the confusion around the dimension psychopathic. The source of the confusion is a failure to understand that one issue underlies psychopathy and is the cause of the observed fact that a group of traits and behaviors cluster together in psychopathy/sociopathy.
The cause of psychopathy/sociopathy is an addiction to power. The addiction to power can start at any age but as in most addictions it usually begins by the early 20s. Also like other addictions, the earlier a person becomes addicted to power, the worse the addiction. Addictions that begin early are very resistant to treatment and carry a very poor prognosis. Psychopathy/sociopathy that starts prior to age 10 (puberty) is the most devastating.
The idea that an addiction to power underlies psychopathy/sociopathy has important micro and macro implications for human society. On a micro level the family is affected by psychopathic individuals who are obsessed with the pursuit of interpersonal power at the expense of family members. Violence, callous manipulation and sadism are all part of that power fix. The person that abuses family members does so because it makes him or her feel powerful. That is true whether the abuser is mother, father, brother, sister or any other relation.
The macro level is just as important. Our institutional leaders, if addicted to power produce widespread abuse in our society. Institutional leaders are bosses, politicians, teachers and the like. When we examine risk for “psychopathy” in leaders, it is useful to consider the phenomenon of addiction as applied to power.
Last night we went to The Cheesecake Factory to celebrate my daughter’s 18th birthday. I had one frozen mango marguerita, likely one of six I will have in all of 2009. I will also likely drink 4 glasses of wine and about three beers all year. There are many people who cannot drink just one drink because the pleasure of alcohol sets off a chemical reaction in their brains. Once they have one drink they develop a compulsion to keep drinking.
Power with me works the same way. I dislike telling other people what to do. I have had to learn to manage this dislike in order to adequately mother my children. Good parenting requires the thoughtful, careful exertion of interpersonal power. Some parents become addicted to that power and become what are called “authoritarian parents.” They are so bossy and dictatorial their poor children never learn to think for themselves.
Institutional leaders are like parents. Leadership requires thoughtful, careful exertion of interpersonal power. For a psychopathic, power-addict the first time they lead the meeting fills them with pleasure and delight. They become obsessed with the feeling and so obsessed with power. Since love and power motives are mutually exclusive, eventually power consumes the person’s entire being and he/she develops all the qualities of “a psychopath.”
Let us look at domestic violence again. Men and women who abuse their partners mentally, emotionally sexually and physically are not normal people who are the subjects of the influence of a violent society. They are power addicts. Just like there are societal factors in alcoholism, gambling and other addictions, there are societal influences on psychopathy. These societal influences no more cause psychopathy or power addiction, than they do alcoholism. Drinking causes alcoholism and exerting power causes psychopathy- in people with an inborn predisposition.
Please comment on what I have written. If you disagree please state your reasons. Let’s have a debate.
Rune
Yes, Elizabeth — especially after we’re weakened by the S/P, we’re more vulnerable to “the usual suspects.” And that’s a continuation of the damage instigated by the S/P — at least in my circumstances.
I may seem desperate to “understand” this intellectually, but I feel my survival depends on in. I appreciate all the insights and anecdotes and gifts of encouragement.
Elizabeth Conley
Yeah, Rune. I see your point.
As often as not, an N/P/S selects the target or simply softens the target up.
Sorry you’re going through this.
EyeoftheStorm
Dr. Liane,
I wanted to read your article again to be sure I understood it.
You wrote….”I believe that ALL people who are violent, callous or sadistic (in the sense that these traits persist in them) are psychopathic.”
I agree with you because I do not have any reason to disagree with you! I’m not clear on the distinction the researcher is making. If violent, callous, sadistic people are not psychopaths, how does the researcher define them? I can’t even think of a word or a term other than some creative clinical definition that splits hairs according to study results than cannot possibly accurately reflect all variables present in an individual’s background, environment, genetic, or medical history.
Jen2008 posted a good discussion presenting an argument for overuse of the term. I’ve been thinking about what she said, however I tend to think those terms are not used enough! They have an ominous ring and a strong connotation, yet they certainly seem appropriate for those who prey on and devastate the lives of their victims.
Matt
At the end of the day who cares what we call them? To quote Bette Davis in “Whatever Happend to Baby Jane?” “But ya are, Blanche, but ya are!”
Ox Drover
Tood, “I know it when I see it”
What a wonderful analogy that is! Right to the point! We know evil when we see it NOW.
Jen2008
Eyeofthestorm, I certainly think the term applies to the people we are talking about on this site, or if they wouldn’t formally be diagnosed as a sociopath or psychopath, they would at least be probably be diagnosed as some version of personality disordered. But I have heard people just out and about loosely use the term “sociopath” to describe people they barely know when they hear of something the person did that they disapprove of. I think it is sometimes used now as almost “slang” by some people now to describe people they just don’t particularly like for some reasson, with no real basis or enough knowledge of the person to even begin considering using the term when it comes to the person
I would, however, like to hear the term used MORE in the media to describe some people. The term sociopath and psychopath has been used ALOT lately on Nancy Grace by several different psychologist to describe Casey Anthony, although most of them will say she “appears” to be sociopathic or psychopathic. Both terms have been used by a variety of guest psychologist on the show. But there has been so much information about her behaviors and so many hours of taped conversations with Casey, and so much info about her past behaviors, that I think she has provided the psychologist (even from a distance) with alot of info to come up with that “possible diagnosis” and they ALL seem to think the same thing about her.
Kathleen Hawk
Liane,
I just caught up with this post. I agree with your analysis, although I sometimes think of it as addicted to winning.
But that’s not all of it, they’re also addicted to being the top dog, and choose their social situations so they can achieve this status. Which means that they’re usually socializing or dating or marrying people who are “beneath them.” Or if they’re not beneath them when it starts, they do whatever they have to do to diminish their stature, so the pecking order is set for their dominance.
Which brings up a related issue. They see the world in terms of power positioning, above or below them, more powerful or vulnerable. They suck up to people who have more power. They denigrate and mistreat people who are further down food chain. Likewise, people lower on the food chain are “food people,” or people to be used because they’re too stupid to take care of themselves.
Except for some pragmatic, generally temporary effort to gain a win or exploit some food, they don’t socialize with each other. (And they do recognize each other.) Because they don’t offer each other the power fixes they want.
This is what I’ve gathered from my dealings with these types. The simplistic focus on power as the defining characteristic of themselves and other people is one of the distinguishing factors of these types (and truly weird from the perspective of anyone else).
But the good news is that it may give us a hint about how to deter the garden-variety predator who is just cruising a power fix, sex or money. I’m not sure exactly how it would work, but it seems like practicing a reptilian stare and a scornful snort might be useful.
EyeoftheStorm
Jen2008,……I do agree with what you said in your first paragraph. I think people throw around the word paranoid the same way!
Generally, there are levels of behavior that seem to be without conscience, and that impact others, but those behaviors though criminal may not be directly violent.
Personally, I definitely apply it to aggressive driving, speeding, and general driving violations since it puts others at risk and IS what causes the shameful slaughter on our highways. Clinicians might not see it that way.
I hope attorneys and mental health professionals will begin using the world appropriately on television shows that discuss violent cases, so it gets into the public consciousness in a way that promotes understanding and brings about a tipping point in favor of accountability.
hardlesson
Personally I think PSYCHOPATHY = (POWER ADDICTION – EMPATHY) x TIME
Jen2008
Kathleen Hawk said: “Except for some pragmatic, generally temporary effort to gain a win or exploit some food, they don’t socialize with each other. (And they do recognize each other.) Because they don’t offer each other the power fixes they want.”
You know, I tend to think they recognize each other too. What does everyone else on LF think? I also wonder if any “professionals” have any opinions on this based on their work or therapy with psychopaths, or if any sort of research with psychopaths has determined this to be true in most cases. Does anyone know if any articles etc. exist on this?