It really bothers me that researchers haven’t developed a measure to help people figure out if their loved ones are sociopathic. Instead, measures have been developed and the public is told NOT to use them to “diagnose” anyone. What good is research if it doesn’t teach people how to protect themselves? It would not be too difficult to identify a group of sociopaths, then determine a few easy questions related to the disorder most of the sociopaths answer yes or no to (that is sensitivity). The questions would be even better if non-sociopaths were unlikely to give the same response (that is specificity).
In a recent study (Comp. Psych. 48, 529), Dr. Heather Gelhorn and her colleagues from the University of Colorado have determined the four questions that identify sociopaths with a good degree of accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Additionally, there are some other questions that also help. The best part is that these questions are easy to ask so you don’t have to have a Ph.D. or an M.D. to ask them.
Before I tell you the questions let me give you some background. As part of a large study, government researchers interviewed 43,093 residents of the United States. Of these, 1,403 were diagnosed with sociopathy (932 men and 471 women). That was between 3 and 4 percent of the total sample. These individuals were asked a number of simple questions about their behavior. The answers to these questions given by diagnosed sociopaths were then compared to answers given by other people who had only one symptom of sociopathy and so could not be “diagnosed.” These sub-clinical sociopaths numbered 17,767 men and 4,659 women. There are a lot of somewhat “sociopathic” people out there (22,426, over half the sample). The issue is how we identify people who are the real deal, given that so many “are a little sociopathic.”
Dr. Gelhorn and her colleagues performed a statistical analysis on specific questions and on groups of questions to determine those that best specifically identified the sociopaths. Of these four questions, a “yes” answer to any two was a good indicator of sociopathy in both men and women:
1. Have you ever hit someone so hard that you injured them, or they had to see a doctor? OR: Physically hurt another person in any other way on purpose?
2. Have you ever used a weapon, like a stick, knife or gun in a fight?
3. Have you ever had a time in your life when you lied a lot, not counting any times you lied to keep from being hurt? OR: Used a false or made-up name or alias? OR: Scammed or conned someone for money, to avoid responsibility or just for fun? OR: Forged someone else’s signature—like on a legal document or on a check?
4. Have you ever robbed or mugged someone, or snatched a purse?
Two other questions were nearly as good:
1. Have you had a time when you bullied or pushed people around or tried to make them afraid of you? OR: Harassed, threatened or blackmailed someone?
2. Have you ever stolen anything from someone or someplace when no one was around? OR: Shoplifted?
The basic problem is finding questions that all sociopaths answer the same to, and that no one who is not “a sociopath” answers that way. There was one question that everyone who answered yes to was a sociopath but the problem was that too few sociopaths endorsed this item. In other words, if your loved one answers “yes” to this you can say with a high degree of confidence he/she is sociopathic, but not answering “yes” does not rule out sociopathy. This question was:
1. Have you ever forced someone to have sex with you against their will?
I find it remarkable that habitual lying is on the same list as other more obviously hurtful behavior. It is clear that if you are with someone who is a liar; you have to wonder what else that person does that you do not know about.
The purpose of this analysis that Dr. Gelhorn and her colleagues performed was not to help us pick out sociopaths. The purpose of the study was to help us identify teenagers who are likely to develop sociopathy. These researchers found that 75 percent of people who had conduct disorder as teenagers went on to become sociopaths.
An observation I found particularly interesting was that cruelty to animals was not very common in sociopaths, either as teens or adults. Whereas 67 percent of sociopaths were “physically cruel to people” only 22 percent were physically cruel to animals. This information is consistent with what Sandra L. Brown, M.A. and I found when we surveyed the female partners of sociopaths. Sociopaths were always mean to the people in their lives, but only a few were also mean to animals.
What conclusions can we draw from all this? First, sociopathy is a disorder where people use coercion, either physical or non-physical, to overpower other people. Why do sociopaths do this? As Dr. Steve said this week, because they like to. This power behavior gives them pleasure. To them, having power is like having an orgasm. The reason physical violence is especially pleasurable for some is that observing someone else crying or wincing over what they did makes them feel especially powerful. Those sociopaths who are better at observing and understanding people just lie to hurt. They don’t have to see physical pain before they can get that gratification.
Hello everyone,
I suppose the self-reporting aspect is the most problematic — I mean, these people know how to game the system.
From what I can gather, I think the part of the brain that “feels” emotion is unplugged. They understand how to use emotion to manipulate others, but they themselves can only imagine what “feelings” are.
So perhaps the best way to figure out if a person is a psychopath (or sociopath or whatever the proper name is) is to see if they have the capacity to actually “feel” emotion, rather than just look like they “feel” emotion.
One more thing: “Do you dream?” or “What do you dream about?” may be a question that can determine if someone is a psychopath (sociopath,etc.)
I’m trying to figure out if psychopaths (sociopaths, etc.) dream. There are some old research papers, from about 1980’s, that say that there may be a disconnect between the part of the brain that “dreams” — in the brain stem area — and the frontal lobes, which are involved in higher order thinking. There are also papers dealing with alcoholism, and the effect of prolonged alcohol or drugs on the white matter — the neural wiring — that seems to “unplug” the thinking part of the brain from the emotional part of the brain. I thought this was interesting because the brain stem area (the pons or pontine, and what I don’t know about it is alot) is an archaic area involved in base-line, animalistic processing. Like, crying or screaming. The frontal lobes have to do with understanding that other people think things, and fairness, and guilt and complicated thoughts (again, I’m sure there are experts here who can correct, but I think that’s the basics).
So “do you dream?” may be a question that can determine if someone is a psychopath (sociopath, etc.). I’d be interested in anyone’s comments on that one.
http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress
Sociopath = Psychopath.
The terms are equal, with the exact same meaning.
They are completely interchangeable.
The reason sociopath has come to be often preferable is because people might be inclined to confuse “psychopath” with “psychotic” – and psychopaths/sociopaths are NOT psychotic. Indeed, quite the opposite.
A criminal deemed psychotic can be found not guilty by reason of insanity, or unfit to stand trial.
A criminal deemed psychopath is deemed legally sane.
People though, often use the word “pscyho” to mean someone who’s a sociopath type person…. or they often use it to refer to someone who’s behaving psychotically.
I’ve never known of anyone as a kid, or as an adult, who forged parental excuses for school. I certainly never did it. And if anyone I know did, they didn’t tell me about it.
Just thought I’d throw that in there.
Anyway…
“What good is research if it doesn’t teach people how to protect themselves?”
Exactly.
What’s worse is that it sometimes doesn’t do the professionals any good, as I see psychiatrists and pscyhologists get into or stay in abusive, crazy, or sick, personal relationships all the time.
I’m a firm believer in unprofessional armchair diagnosing for your own personal private benefit in making decisions in your own personal life. I don’t think you should have to go to college and pay to take exams and make it your life career, in order to learn about this stuff on your own, and use the knowledge for benefit.
Of course I think only professionals should be utilized to make diagnoses that would legally effect the subject of the diagnosis.
But as far as your own personal life- by all means everyone has the right to understand these things, and employ the knowledge in your private decisions.
But I think those questions are for the birds on that score.
Particularly since these questions are highly interpretable… I would answer yes to #1 & #3, and I don’t even come close to meeting the criteria for anti-social disorder, let alone sociopathic. Though #1 was in self-defense, and #3 was too albeit indirectly. But I’m sure any sociopath would argue the same thing!! Not to mention many other garden variety jerks would have a quick & easy justification.
As Laura stated, what about if you bullied a sociopath that was bullying you? I bully my landlord as much as possible, who I believe is a sociopath, because it’s the ONLY way to get results unless I wanted to be filing formal complaints left & right like my one neighbor. It’s far more effective than actually having to pay a lawyer to bully him. Until he sells the building to someone new, or I find someplace else appropriate to move, that’s how it is. I’m not out bullying people for pleasure, indeed I deeply despise every interaction with this landlord, even when things go my way. I’m bullying a landlord into doing what legally & ethically he’s obliged to do, by law. I shouldn’t have to. I don’t want to. But I do it. Does that make me a sociopath? I think it makes me a human who’s willing to stand up for my rights taking the path of least resistance.
But the bigger problem I have with these questions is that on an anonymous survey, people might be induced to being honest.
But if you’re in a position where a sociopath is trying to con you, use you, or win your affection… if you ask him/her a point blank questions like this, they’re not going to be so foolish to actually answer honestly! Only a very very stupid & unsuccessful con man would admit to this sort of thing openly point blank to a mark! Duh.
I mean get real. You’d be better off giving your new date a Cosmopolitan Magazine quiz, or asking them if they wet the bed past age 14.
I FAR better think the list in the book “The Sociopath Next Door” is far better a guide to helping you discern who might be a sociopath. It’s an approach that does NOT require any cooperation from the sociopath (or suspected sociopath).
The only reason I know the answers to those question are almost all true for my ex is because he let them out one at a time over 18 years. None of them came out before we were engaged. He also had to pass a psyc exam to get into the sheriff’s dept. When I asked him what they said about his childhood abuse he said he didn’t tell them because they would not have hired him. I’m sure he lied about more than just that during it.
LilOrphan, your list is priceless and right on. I think those who have experienced the psychopath can tell when others have also because they “know the signs.”
The item about the strange use of words could even be useful for detecting psychopaths online, from their writing. When I published my own story about my encounter with an online deviant, I also took the trouble to collect all his writings, emails, etc, and published them also for the sake of others who might be able to extract clues from them. Needless to say, nearly everything he wrote was a lie from bottom to top, but what I could see in retrospect was that all the clues were there! Only, since I was not (as Jimi Hendrix said) “experienced.”
It’s been a long and painful 8 years since then: lies and defamation and stalking. But I can say, it has been one of the most useful experiences of my life; I sure learned a lot about humanity and non-humanity!
WP: psychopath and sociopath are not equal terms with the exact same meaning. There is actually a world of difference between them. It is unfortunate that most people don’t grok this because it is the thing that makes it easier for psychopaths to hide and get away with murder (sometimes literally.)
This problem is even highlighted by the “list of questions” proposed by Liane. Those questions may relate to the anti-social behaviors of a sociopath, they may also relate to behaviors of people in various stressful or unusual situations. AND they may describe behaviors of psychopaths, but when they do, they only describe the “failed” psychopaths, the ones that get caught or noticed.
The simplest, clearest and truest portrait of the psychopath is given in the titles of three seminal works on the subject: Without Conscience by Robert Hare, The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, and Snakes in Suits by Hare and Paul Babiak. A psychopath is exactly that: conscienceless. BUT! The most important thing to remember is that this is hidden from view behind a mask of normality that is often so convincing that even experts are deceived and, as a result, they can become the Snakes in Suits that control our world via politics, industry, media, and even academia. As Hervey Cleckley noted, confirmed by Hare later, psychology, religion, medicine, are fields that are particularly favorable to psychopaths because they are seeking ways to have power over others and the “good” ones try to do it in ways that will allow them to “pass as normal.”
Of course, most of us don’t get to directly encounter psychopaths that are that good very often – if they are that good, they are “at the top” and affect us mainly via their “trickle down” poisoning of social concepts and understanding.
The definition given by Hare, is the exact same definition for sociopath.
Sociopath is just a newer term used to try to impress to people that these psychopaths/sociopaths are NOT psychotic.
http://www.lovefraud.com/01_whatsaSociopath/psychopath_or_sociopath.html
The difference comes in when somoene is diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
NOT ALL people with Anti-Social Personality Disorder are psychopaths/sociopaths.
That’s the distinction that Robert Hare makes.
He (Hare) personally might use the term “sociopath” to mean someone with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, because he prefers the term “psychopath”. But if that’s the case, that’s the reason things are so muddled.
The fact is that clinicians started using the term “sociopath” in order to distinguish psychopaths from those people with psychosis. They’re VERY different things.
AND, because many people associate the term “psychopaths” with serial killers and people in prison. The fact is, not all psychopaths go to prison, most never kill anyone, some might not even break the law.
Even Hare says that in his book “Without Conscience” – which is mostly about the ones that go to prison.
Some people may use the terms to mean a level of degree in this. Like that psychopaths are the prison inmates that Hare talks about, and sociopaths are the ones that get away with it.
The book “THe Sociopath Next Door” is talking about the exact same type of person that Hare talks about in “Without Conscience”. Same criteria, same “symptoms”, same behaviour. No conscience, no empathy.
But this book, unlike the Hare book, is about those with this ‘condition’ that “get away with it” for the most part. (IE: they manage to stay out of prison, they’re not serial killers, etc.)
BUT, even Hare said in his book that not all psychopaths wind up in prison.
AND he said that some prison inmates diagnosed with Anti-Social Personality Disorder are not psychopaths.
The fact is, the murderers and the con men both operate the same way, both lack conscience, both lack empathy, both lack higher emotional abilities…
As far as I can see, both are just as hopeless when it comes to dealing with them in your daily life. If you think you’re going to get through to a person who is like this, just because he’s never been to prison and never killed anyone – you’re setting yourself up for disappointment & danger.
In my opinion, the ones who manage to stay out of prison are probably more dangerous to the general public, because they must be smarter somehow! They skirt the law and get away with much more. They know how to beat the system.
The ones that wind up in jail are the ones that are more obvious about there being something wrong with them, something different. They might have more seriously injured victims, more dead victims. But my guess is that they actually have LESS victims.
So it really depends on what context you’re considering at the time – what things you’re consider “worse” – quantity or severity.
The violent one will have a few seriously injured or killed victims, and wind up in jail for most of their lives, and are more likely to come to an early death.
The con artist type will live free, making a victim of every single person, perhaps hundreds or more, that they come in contact with over 60+ years.
Robert Hare’s book, albeit a fantastic description of the problem… is not really a practical guide to dealing with these people for the general public. Most of the book is about the ones that are in prison.
If you want to avoid being the victim of the kind of people that wind up in prison… the murderer, the rapist, the mugger, etc… I recommend “The Gift of Fear” by DeBecker.
If you want to avoid being the victim of a con artist, emotionally abusive partner, the scheming co-worker… I recommend “The Sociopath Next Door”.
These books give practical guides on how to avoid each type of dangerous character.
I’m starting to think that when it comes to this, maybe taking away the labels, and dealing with what you see and what is happening, is more advantageous.
I mean if someone behaves as if they don’t have a conscience, behaves as if they don’t feel empathy… Does it really matter if they meet the criteria or not?
If someone is hurting you, or someone else, does it matter whether or not they meet the criteria for some psychological terminology? You’re being hurt all the same.
If someone treats you unfairly, rudely, nastily, at the end of the day, does it matter why? Does it change what you ought to do to protect yourself, to take care of yourself?
What if someone’s cruel to you simply because they don’t like you? Does that make it okay?
If someone beats you because they’re schizophrenic and in a psychosis, does that mean you have to stand there and take it? If someone is abusive because they’re bipolar, does that mean you have to suck it up and put up with the abuse?
I say no.
I live in a small rural community, and in general “everyone knows everyone else” and people have a “reputation” in the community.
In a smaller community like this it is usually easier to “spot” a violent psychopath (sociiopath; AntiSocial Personality Disorger–or whatever you want to label them) by their “reputation.” In some cases whole families have “reputations” as violent actors, “heavy hitters” and wife beaters, liars, con men, thieves, etc.
NOt everyone who is a psychopath however has a “bad” reputation as some of them “cover it up” pretty well, and give a “public” face of kind, caring and honest. Others are very easy to “spot.”
In areas where a person can remain in the same general area, yet move a few blocks or a few miles and be in a “new” spot where few if anyone, knows of prior behavior (wife beating, infidelity, theft, etc) it is more difficult to know about pervious behavior when you meet this person.
It is fairly common for psychopaths to move from one area to another if they become “known” in one area as “unsavory” or “violent.” They thus have a new “hunting area” for victims that are not “shy of them.” Sort of like an animal predator may move from one area to another because the game becomes wary in one place and a “newer area” would not have game quite so wary if it had not been previously hunted by that type of predator.
I can’t remember who said it but I remember reading that “the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior” and I truly believe that is so. So if you meet someone you don’t know what their previous behavior was, you have to judge them from current behavior, which in many cases the psychopath is quite good at pretending to be a caring and empathetic person.
My personal experience with the several psychopaths in my immediate family, which include two murderers, is that they are rage-filled individuals who value control of others above all else. If the control fails with the “soft touch” they will advance to violence in a “heart beat” without any remorse at all.
To me, the frustrated rage that can sometimes be seen in a person is the single best indicator of psychopathic tendencies and I shy away from that person. This rage is frequently seen as “The Look” and the best description of it that I can give is the look of utter “rage” on Charlie Manson’s photograph that was widely broadcast in magazines and newspapers after the Tate murders in California in the I think late 60s or early 70s. It is “demonic” and “black” and I have never seen this look on the face of a person, no matter how they were provoked, unless they were psychopathic in the worst sense of the word.
The second best indicator that I have seen is the TENDENCY to lie frequently. I know that we all “lie” in one form or another to save embarasment “Oh, yes, Sue, that dress looks lovely on you.” But the tendency to “lie when the truth would fit better” or to tell conflicting stories and to confabulate and make up stories (lies) to impress others with their education, smarts, and money, to agrandize themselves…I have never seen a case of an adult who does this regularly that wasn’t a psychopath.
Dishonesty and “petit theft” and other “sins” that may seem minor, if taken one at a time, but actually taken together as a “life style” show a person’s willingness, in my mind anyway, to do whatever is “best” for them, at the expense of others. To me this says “AVOID this person” loudly and clearly.
To my mind, anytime you open yourself up to a person who is a liar and a thief, or who is regularly rude, shows any sign of suppressed rage, you are potentially letting a psychopath into your life. It isn’t worth the risk.
OxDrover: you mention the Look.. of utter rage but I also feel there is the opposite. Their eyes look hollow. They look as if they are looking through everything but not at it, or not at you. Blank, empty, emotionless eyes. I saw that more times than I care to count in my Sociopath – and I didnt really have any education on this topic in the beginning to know what it was that I was seeing.
Its because they are hollow inside and also I noticed rarely did he ever really look into my eyes. I hardly recall any eye to eye contract frankly. Did anyone else notice this kind of thing?
My socio husband was good at making eye contact. Seemingly warm, caring eye contact. I never noticed a blank, hollow look on his face before. What’s strange is that now I see it in photographs–particularly digital ones. Sometimes I’ll sit and gaze at images of him on my computer and it’s almost shocking. In some pictures I see that blank expression, in others hostility, in some he looks downright evil.
Perhaps I’m only imagining things, but I think I’m actually seeing a reality that I never before knew existed.
You’re not imagining it–I see it in my ex socio’s husband’s pics, too. It’s because we now know what to look for and can so easily see the fakeness about them. My ex socio who has picked up one woman right after the other for brief sexual encounters was asked by a friend how in the world he managed to get these women in bed with him when a lot of them knew that he was married and some of the even knew me. He answered his friend by telling him the “technique” he used. He told him that you look the woman straight in the eye, if she looks away the first time, move on, but if she looks back–she’s game! How sick is that? Sounds like a predator of some sort to me!
OxDrover: I’ve been saying this same type of thing for years! That the reason that in olden times, a lot of the crimes today weren’t as common, is because back in the old days, communities were smaller, people knew each other’s business, and people had “reputations”. That’s why a hundred+ years ago, wealthy society people who had been disgraced with bad reputations in England used to flee to the Americas to start over, where nobody knew them.
And before the TransAtlantic cable, it would take weeks or months to receive news between the continents. And that’s why, back then, when “a stranger came to town”, people were suspicious of them until the stranger proved themselves.
I know of a recent situation where a con man has made the news in 2 different counties in my state. The first time he went to prison in one county, you would think he would have to leave the state to set up shop in the same business, but no – he moved one county over, and started again. Though in his case, some people saved themselves by Googling his name… And in some startling cases, the victims KNEW of his past convictions & problems, yet for whatever reason decided to believe in him, and do business with him anyway.
These days, many of us live in “a community of strangers”. We meet strangers on the internet, and some of us start dating relationships that way. And even in my own city, it’s very possible for me to meet someone who I never met before, and who nobody I know, knows anything about them.
And if their name doesn’t wind up on the internet connected to their past troubles, then even Googling them is futile.
And I agree with you whole-heartedly OxDrover, that to me, if someone is regularly rude, they’re not worth the trouble, no matter what reason. My mother always said, if someone is often nasty to other people, even if they’re not currently nasty to you, eventually they will likely be nasty to you, because it’s in their character. And I’ve found for myself that my mother’s advice was spot on!
findingmyselfagain: I tend to see the “hollow” look as almost the same as “utter rage”. I’m not sure how to explain that, other than to say I think a hollow look kind of gives me a feeling that there’s something sinister about a person.
And gillian really hit on something for me… Photographs seem to catch what sometimes we miss in the moment. Being a photographer, there have been many times I’ve taken photographs of people, and when I get to editing them, I notice those blank & fiercely sinister looks, that I didn’t see at the time I was taking the photograph.
And, one time, I saw a photograph of an elderly man who had a really creepy fiercely nasty vacant look about his eyes. It was so startling that I asked someone who knew this man his whole life, about this man, and I learned that he had a long history of making inappropriate remarks to women – including his relatives, attacking other men who dated women who had refused him or dumped him, brawls at family gatherings where the police had to be called, street fights, arrests for petty theft & public drunkeness, and later in life – extramarital affairs, physical & emotional spousal abuse, bullying of family members & business associates, etc.
Thinking of this, it might be a good piece of advice to people using internet dating sites, to take a good look at several photos of their prospective date, BEFORE reading what they have to say – which could be filled with superficial charm, deceit, and empty propaganda. I’m betting some of those internet dating photographs would speak more than 1,000 words!
In my opinion, internet dating is too dangerous to be viable, but considering many people feel it’s necessary, any advantage would be appropriate.