Russell Williams was a colonel in the Canadian Forces, a pilot who flew dignitaries including Queen Elizabeth II, and commander of the largest airbase in Canada. That is, until he was arrested for breaking into women’s homes and stealing their underwear, sexual assault and murdering two young women.
Lovefraud has written about Williams before: For Halloween: A real monster who liked to dress up.
The question, of course, is how did such a predator achieve the rank of colonel? Should he have been flagged along the way? How was it that Williams received nothing but stellar reviews, and turned out to be a murderer?
The Canadian Forces, stunned by what happened, launched an inquiry into how candidates are selected for senior command positions. Could enhanced psychological testing have revealed Williams’ true nature? Here’s what Macleans reported:
The answer, sadly, is no. Among hundreds of pages of internal military documents, obtained by Maclean’s under the Access to Information Act, is a draft version of that review. It confirms what leading experts have long maintained: there is no off-the-shelf exam that employers, armed forces or otherwise, can use to detect sociopathic killers. “Given the recent events in CFB Trenton, it is natural for the CF to question whether or not the organization could have identified a sexual sadist or predicted that an individual would become a serial sexual murderer,” the report says. But that “would be unrealistic to expect.”
Read There’s no way to spot another Russell Williams on Yahoo.com.
It’s probably true that no one could have spotted Williams. His case, however, is highly unusual. As I wrote in Sudden psychopath: The horrifying yet strange case of Col. Russell Williams, this case is unique in that Williams showed no signs of disorder before he suddenly became a sexual pervert and predator. Unlike most sociopaths, he didn’t have a history of lying, cheating and abusing. That’s why his case is so weird.
Judged by behavior
Although I don’t know much about the various psychological tests that are available, I doubt that any self-report inventory, where the subject answers questions about himself or herself, would work. After all, sociopaths lie. They lie about everything, so of course they’re going to lie on a personality test. Even if the test is designed to spot inconsistencies, how would anyone know which part is true?
To diagnose sociopaths, you need to know about their behavior. Most sociopaths leave a lifelong trail of destruction, ranging from overt crime to subtle emotional and psychological abuse. Dr. Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), and it has become the gold standard for diagnosing psychopaths (the term he uses). The PCL-R has two parts—a semi-structured interview, and a “file review.” This means that the individual’s criminal and psychological records are included in the evaluation. In other words, the psychopaths are identified by their behavior, not by their answers on a test.
The Gift of Fear
We, of course, don’t want to experience a sociopath’s behavior. We want to avoid them, so they don’t have an opportunity to inflict any damage of any kind. Can we do it?
I believe the answer is yes. The way to avoid a sociopath is to listen to our intuition.
Several people on Lovefraud have posted about a book called The Gift of Fear, by Gavin de Becker. Oprah Winfrey called de Becker the nation’s leading expert on violent behavior, and his company helps hundreds of people, including celebrities, stay away from stalkers and other predators.
De Becker’s whole point in The Gift of Fear is this: Your intuition will tell you about danger. Listen to it.
I can back this assertion up with data. In the Lovefraud Romantic Partner Survey, conducted earlier this year, I asked the following question: “In the beginning of the involvement, did you have a gut feeling or intuition that something wasn’t right about the person or the relationship?”
Seventy-one percent of respondents said yes. Let me repeat that: 71% of people who became involved with sociopaths knew early on that something was wrong. Unfortunately, most of them stayed in the relationship anyway.
Trust your intuition
I think it’s unlikely that an accurate paper-and-pencil test for spotting sociopaths will ever be developed. However, we all have a built-in early warning system. The system isn’t designed to identify sociopaths in an abstract sense; it’s designed to warn us when we are in the presence of danger.
Here are the three steps to protecting yourself from sociopaths:
- Know that sociopaths exist.
- Know the warning signs of sociopathic behavior.
- Trust your intuition.
The key is to pay attention to the warning signals that we receive. But often we don’t. We doubt ourselves. We give the person another chance. We wait for hard evidence. In the end, we are damaged and filled with regrets.
Would listening to their intuition have saved Russell Williams’ victims? We’ll never know. But Gavin de Becker did relate a story about a woman who was assaulted in her apartment. The assailant told her to be quiet, promised he wouldn’t hurt her, and left the room. The woman, filled with fear, didn’t listen to him. She listened to her intuition and slipped away. The guy returned with a kitchen knife, intending to kill her. But she was gone.
I watched the Fishead movie where Robert Hare admits he can’t ID a psychopath or sociopath by just looking at them, that it could take 6mo-1yr of talking to them to uncover their real personality. And that a casual conversation or dating would not be enough. For those who can ID with a Look or One conversation, I say good for you. My father was a pedophile. Sometimes people give me the same icky feeling he did and I immediately impliment permanent distance. But that’s only one kind of spath. The gift that Dr Hare gives me is NO BLAME that I admit I can not ID an spath from a first time impression, that it does take that “off” moment, the DISconnect moment.
What DOES matter is knowing what to do when that disconnect happens. THAT? I have NO confusion or indecisiveness about.
I found an article of a scientific test done to investigate intuition.
http://www.science20.com/brain_candyfeed_your_mind/clinical_evidence_intuition_iowa_gambling_task
The article describes a test where people were rewarded for picking a card from a ‘good’ deck of cards and punished for picking a card from a ‘bad’ deck of cards. After several runs of going through the cards people started to increasingly prefer and pick cards from a ‘good’ deck (though not consciously recognizable). More, galvanic skin tests (like a lie detector) showed that people showed stress responses whenever their hand hovered above a ‘bad deck’ card after about only 10 flips of cards. So the test persons knew which were bad cards even long before they were aware of it, or even started to act upon their intuition.
During the test, they also had to simultaneously do another cognitive task, so that it prevented them from thinking their way through logically which card to pick, and also proving that cognitive tasks do not hinder our emotional-intuitive based tasks.
The test showed that intuition is a response translated into a feeling, an emotion and sensation, that it does not stop working while we’re doing cognitive tasks, and that it relies on memory and experience (as the intuition in the game of which card to pick got beter the longer it was played) in answer to reward-punishment.
http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-publications/electrophysiological-evidence-of-intuition-part-1-the-surprising-role-of-the-heart.html
Another study done that aside from skin also tested heart rate responses, where test persons were either shown an emoting picture or a neutral one. Turns out that prior to even seeing the emoting picture heart rates slowed down in anticipation of it, even though there was no rational way to explain how the heart would know an emoting picture would be shown secs later. They also tested to see what happens in the brain and where in the brain, but it’s not explained in the article. They also compared the results based on gender and found that women on average seem to be better at it. They theorize that the heart is involved in processing and decoding intuitive information, and that once the info is in the body (even if it’s about an unpredictable short-term future event) the brain treats it like any other type of sensory information: that is, valid.
The complete study of the heart involved in intuition outlined in the above link can be read in this pdf file
http://www.marlana.org/articles/HeartMath-inuition-study.pdf
Darwin’s mom,
interesting article.
Right now I’m investigating the role of the 2 hemispheres of the brain. I wonder if the 2 different brains are doing the 2 different tasks. The cognitive stuff goes on in the left brain while the intuitive stuff happens in the right. That’s why they can both work simultaneously.
I was remembering something I read in the book, “The science of evil”. It was about some experiments done with people who had their corpus callosum cut. But now I can’t find that section in the book.
Oxy,
I remember that you reviewed it and I wondered if this is something that you can remember where that information was located.
Anyone else have the book? I’ve perused it over again and just can’t find the reference to the experiment.
KatyDid
I think your point about how long it takes to spot a spath is a good point. I beat myself up all the time for how long it took me, and I am still not believing it.
However, I think once you know what to look for, and a person exposes their true selves, it can be a fairly easy call. I am not a clinician, I admit.
The last time I posted something about somebody running for president, Donna deleted my post. I am not sure why.
But in my humble opinion, we had one person running who since removed himself from the race because he was caught in a myriad of lies
And we have another person who is now a front runner who shows a pattern of lying to all his spouses, and grandiose thinking, and it is said by his close confidants that he “uses people”.
That’s enough for me, and I don’t know the guy.
This is why I keep asking the question – is pervasive lying and deceit a symptom of any other PD? If not, it sure seems to me that we have a fairly reliable indicator to use.
Athena
Sky,
Especially the article (bottom link) about the heart being involved is incredibly interesting. It’s part 1 of that study. More and more studies start to show that the heart is indeed involved in emotional and cognitive response, sensory and information gathering processes. The last article shows there is an intuitive response in the heart even before the brain does. Seems the heart has a mind of its own. 😉
These are the links on part 2 of the heart and brain responses prior to actually seeing the stimulus (so intuitive knowing what kind of stimulus you’ll be getting before getting it).
http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-publications/electrophysiological-evidence-of-intuition-part-2-a-system-wide-process.html
http://www.heartmath.org/templates/ihm/downloads/pdf/research/publications/intuition-part2.pdf
Note though: this study does not test whether the particpants are consciously aware of their intuitive pre-knowledge, but it proves that at least our body knows… they explain (comparing the times of significant heartrate and brainwave changes) that about 5 secs before the emoting image is shown, the heart rate goes significantly down. Meanwhile the brain starts to act as if it’s in attention mode (‘hmmm, heart information will be coming in soon, I’ve got to pay attention) and a little less than 1 sec later than the heartrate slowing the brainwave peaks positive as if it’s signaling (“Got it, heart! I know I’ll be getting an emoting image”)… this is still 3 secs before seeing it.
What is the test? People who click on a mouse button to start a trial. For 6 secs they only get a blank screen. Then they see a randomly picked image (neutral or emoting) for 3 secs. ANd there’s a cooldown of 10 secs after the image, before they’re allowed to start a next trial. Participants got to see total of 45 images, 30 neutral ones, 15 emoting ones. And thus, about 1 sec after clicking the mouse button the heart already knows whether it’s going to be a neutral or emoting one, and the brain knows it little less after 2 secs after hitting the mouse button.
In part 3 they try to come up with an information-processing theory and how in the hell would the heart know what the future will bring 5 secs later in time… related to information exchange done by quantum particles (here come the physics), where particles know about other particles instantenously even though at a total different location (so no information traveling, like light) and act as if they know the outcome of a test prior to the test itself.
Thanks Darwins mom,
I’m in the process of collecting information on this subject. It’s the key, I think to getting the spaths and their affect on us.
Right brain, left brain, intuition and logic.
Darwin’s Mom,
Did you ever see the movie “What the bleep? Down the rabbit hole” ? It’s about quantum physics….very interesting material.
the gift of fear is a really good book for anyone whether they have encounter a sociopath or not, because it will help them know how NOT to get involved with one. another good one i have read recently is “how to spot a dangerous man becfore you get involved”
it realy focuses on how anyone with a pathological disorder, a virtually “unfixable” illness can harm you in so many ways. and how to know when thats the kindof person you’ve encountered and how to not fall for the idea of fixing them but instead taking tha tinformation and saying “how can i keep myself safe now that i know this?
Thank you, Green Bean!
Let’s take an informal poll here. My observation is that virtually everyone here who was a victim of a sociopath, family member spaths excluded for obvious reasons, saw various “red flags” that were ignored.
For me, this was the case in both a relationship and an employer/boss.
Who is next? Can anyone say they were completely blindsided?