Having spent time listening to many psychopathy researchers, I can attest to many times coming away with the feeling that very critical insights are being missed. An appreciation for the bigger picture just isn’t there yet. For me the bigger picture always includes the family. A sociopath may prey on strangers, but usually that is after a lifetime of practice on family members. The reason this piece is so critical is that the personality disorder, psychopathy is a pervasive disorder of human social behavior that affects every relationship the disordered person has.
Considering what this disorder actually is- a pervasive disorder of human social behavior, the perspective of family members becomes very important. Methods of victimization of others also shed light on the nature of the disorder itself. I think this may be the only psychiatric disorder that would not be present if the affected person was lost alone on an island somewhere. That observation is often lost amid the abnormal brain scans and cognitive tests that are sometimes seen in affected persons.
Without the balance of hearing from victims and family members theories of psychopathy can even miss the central features of the disorder. For example, one new theory of psychopathy called the Triarchic Theory, states that the three traits of boldness, meanness and dysinhibition tell the entire story. The theory is actually better than this sounds but meanness is not what the authors of the theory think it is. If sociopaths were obviously mean, there would not be as many victims.
Given the assertions of the Triarchic Theory it is not surprising that the DSM 5 Personality Disorders Task Force proposed that “acknowledgement and articulation of other emotions (than anger) such as love and anxiety is rare.” Researchers need to put their theories into a perspective that can only be gained through real life outside the laboratory. Therefore it is critical that meetings include work on victims and their experiences, as subjective and “unscientific” as this may sound.
The posters Donna and I presented were an opportunity to challenge researchers to consider their words and assertions carefully. Many came away from reading them doing just that. I had to explain why the language proposed for DSM 5 is wrong, as many tried to defend the proposed statement as true.
There were also two posters from Adelle Forth’s group out of Canada’s Carleton University by graduate students Henriette Bergstrom and Janelle Beaudette on the effects of victimization by a psychopath on victims’ relationship functioning and physical health. This group has identified several themes in the narrative stories of victims, ongoing suffering, transformation and transcendence. But they also say those victims who came through the experience stronger did not really describe how.
This group has identified something I think is very important, that is the question of how to survive victimization and grow from the experience. The fact that a relationship with a sociopath has detrimental effects on psychological, emotional and physical health that lasts for years after the relationship has ended, tells us a great deal about what this disorder is about.
Watch the video: Donna Andersen explains Lovefraud research at psychopathy conference.
For anyone interested in the technicalities (though it’s quite dense):
Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness
One psychopathic trait it mentions is a “lack of planfulness.“ Now there’s a word I can’t recall hearing before!
If someone is prone to a “lack of planfulness” in their budgeting, together with a “lack of cashfulness,” do they end up suffering from an “excess of billfulness”?
Now that’s interestingfulness!
Would that be the same as ‘fly by nightfulness’?
“”this may be the only psychiatric disorder that would not be present if the affected person was lost alone on an island somewhere.”
So there is a treatement for Sociopaths.
But…..are there enough islands to RX?
Redwald,
I love those “professionally” designed “terms” and I have laughed my head off at some of them…..yea, “lack of planfulness.” You’d think that with all the ed-u-ma-ca-tion these folks have that they would have enough of a vocabulary to cover the meanings of these “invented” words or phrases….LOL
One of my favorite one was used in an article about “change theory” and was “pre-contemplation” stage—meaning, I guess, that the person hadn’t even thought about changing. LOL Wonder how that would work in a sentence with “lack of planfulness?” ROTFLMAO
This is such a great thread, I just had to pop my head in here.
Agreed that BlueJay’s post somehow hit a nerve. It accurately portrays what I observed in my family as well. And I think I have an explanation of sorts. It’s narcissism. The family members know right from wrong, but since it’s US or OUR family members, we are exempt from the normal channels. It’s a form of nepotism.
My father was RAILING about my ex-spath and said, “anyone who abuses a member of my family…I don’t even want to hear their name mentioned in my presence.” I said, “But dad, your daughter and your son have abused me, and they LIVE HERE.” He ran upstairs to his room. no response.
So they don’t even SEE that they have a double standard, they’ve just always done it this way. It’s a feeling that the family must be protected from OUTSIDERS, even as it rots with evil on the inside. Because after all, it’s OUR evil.
I also love the comment that this is the only “disease” that requires at least two people. Well, that’s because any other addiction which ensnares an enabler, can stand on it’s own if the addict tries hard enough. But in sociopathy, the addict is addicted to the enabler. He just needs to suck and suck and suck on another’s power and leave them completely powerless.
Dear Ox Drover:
I read this article and viewed Donna’s video with a lot of interest. I am intrigued with the idea that spaths need another person to prove that they are mentally off. Dr. Leedom says:
“I think this may be the only psychiatric disorder that would not be present if the affected person was lost alone on an island somewhere. ”
Maybe I am not understanding it quite correctly. I tend to not be a very technical thinker (more philosophical and contemplative) so the nuts and bolts loses me in my comprehension.
I am directing this to you because seems to me you have a very clear and very balanced view of how this disorder works (nuts and bolts) and combined with your life’s experiences, your perspective comes from a place of healing which shows through loud and clear. Plus I feel safe with you. I still can tend to be waiting for the other shoe to drop and am apprehensive of letting my guard down. I trust you that you will handle my questions in a kind manner (maybe a boink or too, but always kind in the end!)
What I am failing to get it is this: Donna is explaining in the video about the conflicting data on sociopaths who cannot express love and HER findings that they do often express love. I had the same thought as Skylar’s in above post. I actually have had it for awhile. Some “spaths” are narcissists as the Addiction is.
What I cannot grasp is our tendency to lump everyone together in the spath pool when it seems it is possible that it is all relative and arbitrary-as far as traits and symptoms. BUT my not getting it is more than likely a lack of clarity on my part. I just haven’t put all the pieces of the puzzle together.
My ex bf has most all of the Narc tendencies and a few of the spath ones thus I tend to not label him as sociopath. He never expressed love/caring not even for his daughter, grkids etc. Just his mother, certainly not for me. He is highly narc but not so much the sociopath.
Now I know you have said in other posts that all narcs are spaths and vice versa. All the PS this and that tends to boggle my mind (as far as diagnostics). I did follow Redwald’s analysis on that brilliant post the other day! I agree with Kim F-it was the real deal no doubt!
Since I am not a psychologist and don’t really feel the diagnostics are 100% reliable, I am very confused on how we come to our labels of each “spath”. Yes we have all had one (or more) I just think they are not cookie cutter and stamped out with the same die. I want to lean towards the idea that they all present as individuals whom were all products of their own certain brand of environment and conditioning.
I guess what I am saying Ox is I don’t feel as if it has ever been explained to me in a way where I can really get my arms around it and know for certain that I have a clear understanding of what really is a psychopath, sociopath, narcissist. I want to say they are interchangeable like Legos and their traits can build on one another yet not all are dyed in the wool, some are like the Addiction, only narcs.
Back to Dr. Leedom’s comment, I want to think that even if they were alone, their madness would lead them to self destruct (as data indicates that even sane people can lose their marbles by too much solitude). And their victims would be their own self since they tend to destroy what they ‘love” but then again there we are back to the idea that maybe this is true only for the narcissist and not the psychopath. ???
BTW, I have to say that once I met an emotionally healthy man and am now in a relationship with him, I can see EXACTLY what I had before. The difference is stunning!! I want to understand these concepts as I want to fully put my past behind me. My Irish guy may or not be a narc/spath. He could have just been a very misguided soul recovering from a break up with his wife. I don’t want to accuse in my mind when there is a chance that I am wrong. He was very kind and loving. But he did some things that make me question. Never the less, I am happy now and my temptation to return to the Addiction is not a problem at this time. But I am proceeding with my eyes wide open.
Thanks Ox!!
Adam’s Rib
Dear Adams’rib,
I see your problem, and I definitely understand.
1) Sociopath–psychopath–narcissist–antisocial personality disorder are ALL DIFFERENT NAMES FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING “on the street” (non professionals)
2) even among professionals there is a LOT of disagreement on (a) what the name should be and (b) what the criteria for diagnosis should be.
So can we say CONFUSION????? LOL Of course we can, when the professionals can’t agree even on a name for the condition, what are WE non professionals supposed to think?
We have been “hit up side da haid” by something that left us lying in the emotional street, bruised, broken and bleeding and the EMTs who come to the scene start to argue about the color of what it is that hit us and was it a station wagon or an SUV?
Laugh!
Yep, you have every right to be confused! That is why I say READ READ READ and educate yourself.
Actually, in my opinion and in the opinions of several other people that I think are pretty clear headed, Dr. Leedom, Dr. Robert Hare etc., there is a RANGE of behaviors and attitudes that constitutes what Dr. Hare calls PSYCHOPATHY and Donna uses “Sociopathy” (I pretty much use the two terms interchangably).
A narcissist (VERY self-centered person) can be a “narcissist” and yet not QUITE be a psychopath, just an unpleasant person who has little consideration for another person, but ALL psychopaths are “narcissists” but not all “narcissists” are quite psychopathic.
Psychopaths also have different levels of narcissism and arrogance as well, some more so than others.
As far as “expressing love” whether they can or can’t, they can FAKE EXPRESSING LOVE—they can say the WORDS or even “act nice” for a while during the early stages of the relationship especially, because they instincitively know that “being nice” gets the victim HOOKED. The same way that I know that putting a worm on a hook is much more likely to catch a fish than just throwing out a bare hook will.
The psychopath learns the way to BAIT their hook with words or deeds, but they are INCAPABLE OF FEELING THE FEELINGS that go along with the “being nice” and “saying loving words”—-it is all just BAIT on a HOOK.
The “Irish guy” you have described in other posts (if my memory serves me, it isn’t the greatest for details) I would qualify as a psychopath….your reluctance to “label” him one because you might be wrong, is pretty normal for most of us, however, I think it doesn’t matter if he is or isn’t, he was DANGEROUS and TOXIC….that is enough and more to get away from him.
I hope that answers your questions. No boink for having questions, asking questions is how we learn….but being down on ourselves for asking questions that is what gets a “boink” from me. LOL So no boink for you my friend! ((((hugs))))
this is really helpful Ox. Really sorts out the wash if ya know what I mean. Glad to know my confusion in all this is normal and I’m not just missing something that everyone else is getting!
Yes Irish Guy was dangerous in that he never gave me the closure that I so needed. He was so good with words “silver tongued Irishman” for sure but he couldn’t find the words (or the time) to give me one small letter that validated and answered my questions? Instead he left me with uncertainty for TEN YEARS. And being that he is a psychologist, I figure he knows more than anyone else what that type of ongoing, nagging uncertainty does to the psyche. Sadly yes, that is toxic. I see that now thanks to your reply.
(((back at ya)))) 🙂
Adamsrib,
When a psychopath or highly toxic person is a psychologist, they frequently use that professional knowledge as a weapon to hurt their victims. I do think from your description he is a psychopath, but it really doesn’/t matter what the “label” is, because POISON, TOXIC fits the bill quite nicely.
that’s what makes it so sickening Ox. A psychologist for heaven’s sake and a family counselor. But I am not shocked when it is someone else, just him. Sickens me to my core the thought of it because he was so special to me. I just HATE it to think he is one of those creatures.. Not him of all people. UGH!!!SUCKS!!
Gotta go get the kid at the mall. Thanks again for being there for me ox!