Psychopaths and outrageous lies

Among other things, Oxy, I think your article highlights an important point about the variability among people. Among psychopaths in particular, but others as well. It can be very hard to pigeonhole a particular “type” of person, because people don’t always fit a stereotype, certainly not in every respect.

So on the one hand it’s perfectly true as you said that not all liars are psychopaths. Besides all the usual motives ordinary people can have for telling a lie now and again, some people for instance have a constant habit of lying to compensate for their own insecurities. Psychopaths on the other hand seem to lie almost by nature—but as you pointed out, they don’t always lie convincingly! Some do, but some don’t! That’s another facet of the “variability” I was referring to.

I’m sure the large majority of people have a stereotype of what they think a “psychopath” is like. Unfortunately as we know, this stereotype is often a very narrow one, since many people equate the word “psychopath” to the notion of a serial killer. A number of other people are better informed, and realize most psychopaths are not killers at all, but can still do harm in countless other ways. They may have an image of a psychopath as a “slick conman” for instance, and a plausible liar, which is a better fit with the majority. Just the same, I suspect all these stereotypes have one thing in common. They all conceptualize the psychopath as “clever” and “cunning,” slippery at “not getting caught” even as they perpetrate their evil deeds. However ruthless psychopaths may be toward others, whether for the sake of monetary gain or other advantages, whether to indulge purely sadistic impulses, they are still seen as intent on protecting themSELVES and looking after their OWN interests at all times—and very effective at it.

Yet that’s all that is, another stereotype. I dare say it fits a number of psychopaths fairly well. But not all, not by any means. Many psychopaths, while they do harm to others, are not at all good at looking after their own interests, and are just as liable to do harm to themselves in one way or another. That’s often because of their impulsive behavior, or it can result from the addictions that many psychopaths are prone to. It can also be because they’re not so smart and do things that get them caught, or earn them a bad reputation with others. Telling outrageously obvious lies is a good example of this, just as you were describing.

Hervey Cleckley did a great deal to round out our picture of the psychopath in The Mask of Sanity. That was because Cleckley’s sample of psychopaths was somewhat skewed. They were “patients” hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. This meant for one thing that most of them hadn’t done anything deadly enough to warrant a long term of imprisonment, or being locked away in a maximum security institution. It also meant many of them came from respectable families, influential enough to persuade police to hospitalize instead of jailing them—and affluent enough to pay the fees! But it did mean these particular psychopaths were not functional enough to keep going in everyday life and stay out of trouble. What most of them did was not evil on a grand scale. They ran out of money; they committed petty thefts and shoplifted; they got drunk and got into fights; the cops arrested them and they were back in the hospital again, over and over. But an overriding trait of this particular subgroup was their sheer incompetence. Cleckley too remarked on their constant propensity for lying.

Inconsistency is the hallmark of many an abusive personality, whether it’s due to “mood swings,” “psychotic episodes,” or some other cause. This is just as true with psychopaths, where I dare say the impulsivity resulting from “disinhibition” is responsible for so much inconsistent behavior. Yet there are other kinds of “inconsistency” as well.

This subject of “lying” caught my attention because I was recently reflecting on the lies told by a man I’ll refer to as “the Vicar’s brother.” I feel safe enough in saying the Vicar’s brother was a psychopath, and if they knew all the facts I’m sure most people here would agree. This is just one more example of how psychopaths can spring from a perfectly respectable family. (Though I have to admit that a few vicars themselves have been quite naughty in one way or another—including more than one “Vicar of Christ” in person. The infamous John XII for instance, who “turned the Lateran into a brothel”…) But that’s beside the point. This particular Vicar had no stain on his character that I’ve heard about. But his brother turned out to be a very bad man who told more than a few lies, with a bit of truth mixed in for good measure.

Sorting out what was true and what wasn’t was just one problem. Some of this man’s lies were quite plausible, at least to begin with. Though I wondered afterwards if some of those that seemed most plausible to an ordinary person might in fact be the biggest whoppers of all! Other lies he told were credible enough at the time—until the facts came to light, when his story fell apart. And some of his lies, while nowhere near as outrageous as pretending to five holes-in-one, did invite immediate derision. But I must say in his defense that he was put on the spot where he had to come up with some story or other. If it was decidedly lame, perhaps it was the best he could manage at the time.

There were other inconsistencies in his behavior. More than once I had to ask myself: “Even if he was a psychopath… and more so if he was… why on earth did he do THAT?” And on at least one occasion he told the truth where I would have expected him to tell a lie!

But since he got what he wanted anyway on that occasion, perhaps the Vicar’s brother was clever after all. Retelling his story in detail would be quite lengthy (though it is a matter of public record), but if I ever get the time it might be worth retelling it here some day.