One reason why many of us found ourselves victimized by sociopaths is because we did not know that dangerous personality disorders existed.
We may have heard of crazy people, but we assumed that we could spot them because they looked and talked crazy. We may have heard of psychopaths, but we assumed they were serial killers or some other type of obviously hardened criminal.
We did not know that people existed who could convincingly proclaim their love, cry tears of sadness, and make glowing promises for the future, all simply to exploit us. We did not know that these people were called sociopaths and/or psychopaths.
In my opinion, a big reason for the public’s unawareness of, and confusion about, this dangerous personality disorder is the lack of agreement in the mental health profession about naming and defining it. How can you educate the public about these social predators when you can’t even decide what to call them?
Range of names
Research psychologists in major universities use the term “psychopath.” The main reason is that they run their studies using the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), developed by Dr. Robert Hare.
The PCL-R is recognized as the gold standard for evaluating the disorder. The instrument includes a list of 20 characteristics. An individual is rated 0, 1 or 2 on each item, and the points are added up for a total score. A person must score 30 to be diagnosed as a “psychopath.” For more on the PCL-R, read Researchers minimize the psychopathy problem.
Psychiatrists and other clinicians follow the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, now in the 4th edition. At the moment, the official term in the manual for this malady is “antisocial personality disorder.” Psychiatrists use the term “sociopath” for short.
Currently, the DSM-IV recognizes 10 personality disorders, divided into three clusters—A, B and C. Cluster B covers dramatic, emotional or erratic disorders. It includes antisocial, borderline, histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders.
All of this, however, is in the process of change—the 5th edition of the manual is now being written. A year ago, a draft of the new manual was posted on the Internet, and the public was invited to comment. For the most part, the diagnostic criteria were much improved, but Dr. Liane Leedom and I had problems with a few of the descriptive statements. Read our views in Lovefraud’s comment about sociopaths for the DSM-5.
My biggest problem with the revision is that it creates yet another name for this condition, “antisocial/psychopathic type.” Personally, I think this term is ridiculous. I don’t even know how it would be used in a sentence. Do we say that someone is an “antisocial slash psychopathic type”?
Selecting “sociopath”
When I was first developing Lovefraud.com back in 2004, I had to decide which term to use. After some informal market research, I selected “sociopath.”
The main reason was that “psychopath” was just too scary. Hollywood and the media portray psychopaths as deranged serial killers. I worried that people would not believe they had a psychopath in their lives, because he or she had never killed anyone, and would therefore dismiss all of the information about this disorder.
My reasoning was supported by last year’s Lovefraud survey. The survey asked the following questions:
Before your involvement with this disordered individual, what did you understand the term “sociopath” to mean?
- Criminal: 19.2%
- Serial killer: 19.4%
- Someone who was delusional: 6.4%
- Person without empathy or a conscience: 19.7%
- I didn’t know what it meant: 35.3%
Before your involvement with this disordered individual, what did you understand the term “psychopath” to mean?
- Criminal: 15.0%
- Serial killer: 51.2%
- Someone who was delusional: 13.4%
- Person without empathy or a conscience: 8.9%
- I didn’t know what it meant: 11.5%
Fully half of the 1,378 survey respondents believed a psychopath was a serial killer. I think it’s safe to assume that this level of misinformation pervades the general public.
Overlap
So the experts argue over terminology. I’ve even had two college psychology professors contact me to tell me that I’m using the wrong name. Although they didn’t seem to be aware of the disagreement in the field, I am, and I summarize the disparate views on the Lovefraud.com page, Psychopath/sociopath.
In practice, the behaviors and traits exhibited by individuals diagnosed with psychopathy, sociopathy narcissism, and even borderline personality disorders overlap, so it’s hard to tell where one ends and another begins. Many Lovefraud readers simply describe the individual they were involved with as P/S/N, for psychopath/sociopath/narcissist. Others say that the individual has a “cluster B” disorder. Of course, no one knows what that means, but it is less prejudicial and more likely to be believed.
Proposed name
I propose a solution to the name problem. I propose that “sociopath” become the general term for a social predator, someone who exploits others.
In the general category of “sociopath,” there can be subcategories that reflect the different types of exploiters. “Psychopath” can be defined as someone who scores 30 or more on the PCL-R. “Narcissist” can be someone who uses others, but doesn’t necessarily set out to cause them harm. “Antisocial personality disorder” could describe the people who are worse than a narcissist, but not as bad as a psychopath. Other subcategories can be defined as the experts see fit.
“Sociopath” has the advantage that it is already in the lexicon, but does not carry the cultural baggage of “psychopath.” People are generally aware that the word has something to do with bad behavior. But, as our survey pointed out, the largest number of respondents didn’t really know what “sociopath” meant, so they could be educated.
“Sociopath” could be analogous to the term “cancer.” There are many types of cancer—lung cancer, skin cancer, colon cancer—but we all know that cancer is bad and we take precautions to avoid it. We don’t smoke. We use sunscreen. We eat fiber.
Here’s a key point: For many people, the harm caused by sociopaths is completely avoidable, if we take precautions.
Some of us were unlucky in that we were born to a sociopathic parent, or into a family that contained sociopaths. We were stuck in those situations until we could find a way to get out.
But the rest of us invited the sociopaths into our lives. If we knew that these predators existed, if we knew the warning signs, we never would have done it. We could have avoided the trauma that they caused.
In my view, settling on a clear name and diagnostic criteria for this disorder is a public health issue. People have learned how to protect themselves from cancer. With education, we can learn how to protect ourselves from sociopaths as well.
I’m one of those who have always felt Hare’s differentiation between the terms psychopath and sociopath is significant, meaningful and useful, and an important distinction – at least in regards to prevention. Particularly since his definition of psychopathy has proven to be statistically significant when practically applied in law enforcement. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-iv/content/article/10168/54831?verify=0
But I have to say that I’m finding a fair bit to agree with in Donna’s argument – particularly her bit about coming up with a layman’s equivalent along the lines of ‘heart disease’. But I think that argument pushes us away from using the label ‘sociopath’ and more towards the type of term she used at the end of her post: “exploitative personalities”.
This is a fascinating topic, and a lot of good comments here with some extremely valid points. I have to admit, when it comes to this topic, my thinking goes ’round and ’round in confusion and rarely seems to settle.
However, the one point that remains clear for me amongst my otherwise confused understanding of this topic is that I don’t believe we have a scientifically valid understanding or naming (by the ‘experts’) of what I believe to be separate and distinct disorders and conditions, with separate and distinct causes and consequences. And I believe that what we do have is largely ineffective because its drivers are all too frequently labelling, stigmatizing and ‘rent-seeking’ by the psychiatric and mental health communities. Too much to do with funding and furthering entrenched power systems, and not nearly enough to do with public health and the public good. When I look at all the P/S/A/N’s I’ve known – both my mother and very corrupt professionals in the healthcare and financial services industry – NONE of the terms I’ve researched fit precisely, or even adequately. And I don’t see anything in the justice system, the public health system, the social services system, or the political system looking to even begin to address that.
I’ve often said that a very big weakness with Hare’s original research (and Cleckly’s too btw) is that he concentrated on the demographic population where he first encountered that personality type and where his research opportunities were greatest. He then created his definitions and diagnostic criteria – which was fine as far as that limited situation was worth. But he and others then inappropriately extrapolated the findings from that research to the general population. Two of the obvious weaknesses were that he didn’t study women (inside or out of the prison system), and he didn’t study non-convicted offenders. So we’re left with a ‘common’ understanding where, even today and on a site as informed as this, many people in the general population feel completely free to (egregiously in my opinion) exclusively use the pronoun ‘he’ when discussing ‘whatever this condition is’. And we’re left with the situation re: individuals on Wall Street and Financial markets throughout the world where the only time we ever consider use of the name for ‘whatever this condition is’ is when they enter the justice system.
So, considering all of the above, Donna’s approach to come up with a layman’s term along the lines of ‘heart disease’ has some validity but, as bloggert says, it comes with some possible consequences that we shouldn’t overlook.
My two cents…..
We are not here to diagnose and treat these disorders.
As participants of this blog, our most valuable goal is to educate the potential victims. Largely, the people who end up here have already been victims trying to figure out what happened to them or what is happening to them.
Disorder, does not necessarily mean a bad thing. You can put lettered wood blocks in a disorder entreating your child to put them in some order as a fun game to build skills.
So ‘Personality Disorder’ is not necessarily something to be avoided. Over the years I have developed scripts that I go through to shave and to shower. I am a obsessive about it, and I had to redo everything when I decided it would be advantageous to combine these two activities. Re-scripting was necessary. What I do during the process does impact anyone but me. But, I can’t believe I am this obsessed with this activity that would make me develop such an elaborate routine.
There are those who do negatively affect other people.
If I may pull a quote from Donna from one of her above posts “ The point is that we were involved with a toxic person,”
‘toxic person’-ality.
If anyone were to describe to you, some food that was toxic, you immediately will avoid it. Containers of unhealthy materials, ‘toxic’ have special labels (icons) indicating poison or toxins in very non specific ways. We avoid these when we see then and do not quibble about what kind of toxic materials are contained within.
Unlike all the other labels we have discussed, toxic needs no immediate explanation. Perfect for a sound bite audience that does not have time to get a degree in clinical psychology yet may benefit from the immediate understanding of a toxic personality. It is harmful. Stay away.
My comments on the other choices:
too clinical:
path ”“ nondescript, you could be having an enjoyable hike or walk on the path
sociopath (socio, comes from social, many positive connotations ”“ someone was sociable.
Psychopath -too associated in larger culture with serial killer, violent criminals and criminals in general
spath ”“ layman will not understand and it does not have much bite as a word
Cultural:
Narcissist ”“ Some guy dreamily fawning over his reflection in a pool of inviting water (enough said) I always make sure to say ‘high level’ narcissist to overcome this erroneous mythological being when refering to my ‘N’ brother.
Letters?
N
NPD
P
P/S/N
Cluster B
WTF? (please pardon my French)
Sometimes it is hard to read this blog due to transcribing the acronyms (lackronynms)
If you want a pop culture shortened label, I like ‘Tox’.
Many great comments in this thread. Thanks!
Just my thoughts.
Toxins are something you must get near and injest or otherwise be exposed to. It’s not like someone coming up behind you with a syringe and pulling a Dexter on you…..
Donna
“I do not believe it is sufficient to simply say, “avoid abusive behavior.” There are situations in which abuse is an aberration—perhaps the person behaving in an abusive way is under extreme stress, and once the stress is resolved, the behavior stops. This is vastly different from a person who lives his or her life by exploiting others. There needs to be a name for the disorder.”
I absolutely one hundred percent totally and completely agree with this statement. What a GREAT clarification!
I do think it’s true, that the label IS important, and as long as there is one to DEFINE it, then the content of the label can then be dealt with.
Really great comments and interesting posts!
LL
LL,
Completely agree with your post above re: Donna’s distinction between reactive and exploitative abuse.
Hare called psychopaths human “intraspecies predators”, and yet failed to include predatory behaviour as one of the defining attributes of this condition.
I think that ‘exploitative’ is potentially too mild a term for the lived experience and the harm it causes. My vote would be to include the term ‘predatory’ somewhere in the definition. Seems to me that’s what most of us here struggle with – having been the victim of predatory behaviour. And that’s a pretty easy sound-bite for ‘not yet’ victims to understand that they need to defend against.
Annie,
Thanks for your post! It’s amazing how many windows of opportunity for healing this site presents. You clarified it even more and that helps me a lot. A LOT!
I see that my behavior is REACTIVE abuse. That is EXACTLY how I functioned in my relationship with my ex. It’s almost FREEING (although PAINFUL) to see that. I’m encouraged that I recognize this and that I can CHANGE it. It’s such a relief!
It’s another reason I think these distinctions are SO important!
Not just in identifying particulars in behaviors and motives, but also for the victims of these people in understanding their responses and reactions to having lived or been involved with one.
I would agree with you that exploitative and predatory are two terms that seem, to me, to be absolute in definition.
Great post, Annie! Thanks a bunch!
LL
My personal beef is the professional emphasis on violent and criminal behavior. This is why I favor a two term diagonsis:
Psychopath – the more “traditional” view with violent and criminal behavior as a defining characteristic.
Sociopath – nonviolent, non-criminal individuals who are predatory, manipulative and act without guilt or consciousness.
Thanks for the lovely words LL. But really, all I was doing was rephrasing what you’d already said. You and Donna were there at the idea before I was. So thanks to you for bring that up in the first place!
But one thing your post brought to mind for me: healthy people are reacting in ways THEY DON’T WANT TO BE ACTING, and need assistance and teaching re: how to avoid those situations, and how to recognize and get out when they’re in one. And one of the key indicators, it seems to me, is whether or not you are acting in ways that you feel OK about. Psychologically healthy victims don’t feel OK about acting out and would LOVE to change, but haven’t yet figured out what to do in their current situation. Given the slightest opportunity they become reasonable again, and better people resolved not to make that mistake again.
Predators, on the other hand, are there because they want to be there and have no intention of changing (except to refine their predation skills).
To Lesson Learned: I saw your prior blog and totally agree – they are freaks that cannot be healed and we are the victims..
Yeah, when I met my ex – before Thanksgiving years ago and he said he was going to his brothers house, and he said for Xmas through New Year’s he would be in Florida helping his other brother fix his house due to the hurricane – I had no reason not to believe him. Found out he LIED from the start – he was with his girlfriend in Maryland – but he gladly took the Titanium Seiko watch and the hot air balloon ride that I gave him for Xmas real easy….. I overheard him years later say – hey, she wanted to give me that – so I took it… Yeah, if I knew what a lying scum bag he was – he never would have gotten into my house…
So he played, lied, cheated and took my heart and money…
He and all others should be held accountable – they are con people… Con people when caught do jail time – these pieces of scum should also – he knew what he was doing to me….
Annie,
EXCELLENT point and so very very true. I really appreciate your post. I didn’t recognize it while I was in it, but boy do I see it now. I think it’s easy to feel confusion about responses and reactions to an exploitative personality. Education is key for sure.
I think it’s also a definitive idea about change as well. “Psychologically healthy victims don’t feel OK about acting out andn would LOVE to change, but haven’t yet figured out what to do in their current situation”. SUCH a great point! This is currently my situation and I’m just out three months now. I WANT to change my reactive behavior, my ex does not. I see how important that distinction is too, both with regards to the sociopath and the victims of such.
Wow, Annie, you’ve given me something more to chew on. What about the idea that educational information can be given to victims or those not yet victimized, in understanding responses of others who are in relationship with one of these people or themselves getting out of such? There can be a lot of self hatred inside the relationship as well as in the recovery process and a lot of acting out.
Lots to think about there. Another great post Annie, thanks for sharing your insights!
LL