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.
czarinamom
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….
lesson learned
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
lesson learned
cz,
I think you’re right and there’s another distinction to be made too.
What THEY did to US, was a CON. THEY need to take the BLAME for that…..but then there’s the idea that our vulnerabilities got us caught in the first place.
That distinction is super hard in finding the balance in what was my responsibility and what was not.
It takes two to tango. A predator is not going to be able to con anyone without a victim. So where does this particular distinction lie in presenting the label and the content of the information about Sociopathy?
I think initially, bombarding victims with the idea that they are to “blame” in part, is a dangerous one. It could lead to “Oh well, then I can change and maybe he’ll change and…blah blah.. You get the picture. Maybe blame isn’t the right word. Responsible. It still doesn’t take the meaning and feeling away about where the blame belongs, at least initially at first, I think…..
As I process all of this, one of the things that you bring up is so very true and perhaps is also a good distinction: HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. Absolutely.
More to chew on. So many great posts and arguments for and against labels. Interesting, insightful and helpful too.
LL
lesson learned
BBE
That’s a great idea too. Then the defining factors as content to each.
There’s a difference too, not only in violent P’s but also the degree of parasitic.
My exP was a hard worker. Still is. But he was also a major alcoholic, drug addict and incredibly violent. He wasn’t a clean guy, kinda dirty and never cared for himself physically.
My ex spath was incredibly clean, neat tidy, wore really nice clothes, drove a really nice car, lives in a really beautiful home, and shares joint custody with his ex. Has worked in the same field for 25 years now. He was much more difficult to discern for me than my OBVIOUS P.
Not all are without jobs, cars, money. The ones that do have all of that, I think are better able to hide behind their masks for awhile longer.
LL
Annie
Hi LL,
Re: your last point. My husband and I (while I was still working) work in an audit/governance area. We’ve been throwing around ideas re: how to tell if there is a predator in any new ‘group’ or department you have to work with, investigate or report on.
We’ve come up with two indicators so far:
1) the old LF standard “drama”. Groups without a predator may have fuss, anxiety &/or confusion around busy or stressful projects, but they don’t have *D*R*A*M*A*. If there is drama, its almost always because someone is ‘stirring’ things somewhere, and that’s a red flag warning to tread carefully when interacting with anyone in that group.
2) As I wrote to someone recently “looking for odd “panicking” behaviour in any individual in a group is one way to spot if there is a predator lurking amongst them quietly instigating behind the scenes.” And the dangerous person isn’t the one who’s panicking.
Annie
@BBE, I share your beef re: the “professional emphasis on violent and criminal behavior”. Drives me crazy and lets the majority of perpetrators continue to skate. And don’t get me started on the prejudices society employs to define whether or not something is “criminal”. I don’t know your story, but it sounds like you are well aquainted with non-“criminal” type of predator.
Re: the definitions. I think, as well, the *capacity and propensity* for intentional violence (including psychological violence i.e. personality annhilation) is important here.
Not so sure that we don’t end up down a rabbit-hole however with the constant defining/redefining of socio/psycho. I think that’s partly how we got in this mess in the first place.
lesson learned
SS,
I’m curious as to how you define Parasitic Predator and Charming parasitic predator while sharing this information with others?
LL
Annie
@SocioSibs,
Thanks! Snakes in Suits was the book that opened my eyes to this whole subject area (and in many ways saved my life to boot). Not a huge fan of Babiak, but I love your reference to his terms :”Parasitic Predator” and “Charming Parasitic Predator”.
You’re exactly right. I would imagine most people would immediately get what that means with little ambiguity.
lesson learned
Annie,
I’ve not read Snakes in Suits. I think it’s another read I need to get.
LL
Portrait
LL,
The expressions, “Parasitic Predator” & “Charming” same are brief definitions in and of themselves.
If you mean what else do I say to elaborate on the definition while explaining it, then it depends upon the audience. I may say nothing more or much more, or anymore in between. The angle I take and words I use are geared for whoever is listening, the mood & environment, and to fit any time constraints.
Cheers,
SS