Lovefraud recently received an e-mail from a young man, we’ll call him Kyle, who has just broken up with a woman whom he now believes is a sociopath. Based on the behavior he described, I’d say the guy is right. The woman cheated on him, and when confronted, either downplayed her behavior, said it was none of his business, or verbally attacked him. She had no interest in resolving problems. “Her solution to everything was to run, wait awhile, and then pile on affection as if nothing ever happened,” Kyle wrote.
Kyle has been researching sociopathy to try to grasp what is really going on with this woman. Here’s more of his e-mail, which I have reproduced with his permission:
First of all, I don’t believe criminal behavior, monetary fraud, substance abuse, or any other overt signs of social misconduct are primary symptoms of sociopathy. I suppose that’s the big question though… what is a primary sign? My theory is that the sociopath is incapable of developing personal values through the process of induction, meaning they are unable to look within themselves to gain a sense of self-esteem. This results their inability to experience empathy. After all, if one cannot generate a sense of self worth from their own reasoning how can they be expected to relate to others who do?
It seems in every case I have read about, the sociopath is an extravert. I think this is natural as the person must constantly be in contact with others because they find no satisfaction in themselves. Sociopaths also seem to be universally intelligent. (Perhaps these are the factors that differentiate a sociopath from a psychopath. Again, forgive my ignorance on the subject). What results is a charming individual who preys on other people to satisfy an endless hunger for temporary esteem. Because they cannot make sense of the internal values which should be generating this esteem, they simply try to get it from others, essentially reversing cause and effect.
In the end, this system never quite works, so they develop an incredible defense to avoid the fact that every close relationship falls apart. Every interaction is bounded by a series of rules/parameters. So long as the victim stays within these, things run smoothly. However, close human contact results in an emotional trade off that is impossible to control. Normally this is a tremendously good thing: trust, loyalty, and compassion are established. However, these all rely on a person’s sense of self worth, and the sociopath is not able to understand that. Sooner or later the relationship becomes too close and loses all stability. This is the point where the sociopath is “found out.”
In dealing with the woman, I felt a certain childlike quality to her emotions throughout our relationship. Though she was highly developed socially, in a lot of ways I almost felt like I was dealing with a puppy who just killed a small bird in the front yard. I think my mistake was in believing that I would be different. If I held my hand out she wouldn’t bite it. But I think this quality is misleading, as that naiveté is something the sociopath will avoid at all costs. They simply refuse to learn from their mistakes, or even acknowledge them in the first place. It seems to be a rare combination of a highly developed intellect and a poorly developed emotional response.
Perhaps at some point every sociopath learns to guard that core of insecurity at the deepest level and as such cannot even look at that, let alone analyze it and learn from it. In time, they develop an incredibly complex mechanism to guard this, adding another component with each deception. By early adulthood, these deceptions become so many that the cost is just too great to turn back, and it’s just so much easier to keep going that the thought never even crosses their mind.
These people are not normal
Kyle has correctly observed many traits of a sociopath: Criminality, fraud and substance abuse are not necessarily the prime indicators of this personality disorder. Sociopaths do not experience empathy. Sociopaths are extraverts. They are highly developed socially, but emotionally immature. They do not learn from mistakes.
However, his theories on why sociopaths are the way they are suffer from a fatal flaw: They are developed from the perspective of someone who is normal.
The hardest part of understanding what happened during our entanglements with sociopaths is coming to terms the extent to which these people are not normal.
Lovefraud readers have described sociopaths as not human. Aliens inhabiting human bodies. As cold as these descriptions may sound, they’re probably the easiest way to grasp what you are dealing with in a relationship with a sociopath.
So how different are they? Let’s take a look.
What sociopaths want
Normal people want love and harmonious relationships with others. Normal people want to feel competent in some form of endeavor. Normal people want to contribute to the world in some way.
Sociopaths want power, control and sex. Since they do not really value human relationships, they only want to win.
Kyle is correct in stating that sociopaths cannot look within themselves and develop personal values. He is incorrect in assuming that this causes the sociopath distress. Yes, these disordered people are empty inside, and they may be vaguely aware that they are missing something. But most sociopaths do not have issues with their self-esteem. If anything, they are grandiose, and their views of themselves are ridiculously inflated. They feel absolutely entitled to anything that they want, simply because they want it.
Self-esteem and sociopaths
Kyle speculates that sociopaths must be in constant contact with other people because they are trying to borrow self-esteem from others. This is not the case. Sociopaths view people as pawns to be manipulated into giving them what they want. Every social encounter is a potential feeding opportunity, a chance to convince someone to provide something.
Many people, of course, eventually catch on that they are being used, and stop serving as supply to the sociopaths. Sociopaths are aware of this—they’ve experienced it many times. So they are constantly on the lookout for new targets. When one victim is depleted, he or she must be replaced with another.
This leads to the answer to Kyle’s question, which is, “what is a primary sign of sociopathy?” Dr. Leedom has said lying. Steve Becker has said exploitative behavior. Put them together and you can say deceitful exploitation is central to the disorder.
Insecurity and sociopaths
Kyle suggests that sociopaths are insecure and build defense mechanisms to protect themselves from being hurt. By the time they’re adults, these defense mechanisms are so elaborate and complex that sociopaths can’t return to their authentic selves.
Again, he’s trying to interpret the sociopath based on how normal people may cope with personal issues. This is a mistake.
Wikipedia defines insecurity as, “a feeling of general unease or nervousness that may be triggered by perceiving oneself to be unloved, inadequate or worthless.” Sociopaths probably should see themselves as unloved, inadequate or worthless, but they don’t. They may seem to be exhibiting insecurity, but in reality it’s one of two things:
- Frustration that they’re not getting what they want.
- Manipulation tactics to get what they want.
Sociopaths have no feelings, so there are no feelings to hurt. They can certainly pretend to be hurt, but it is a ruse designed to guilt others into giving them what they want.
Genetic roots
So if sociopaths are not trying to protect their deeply felt insecurities, where does this disorder come from? In most cases, the temperamental traits that lead to sociopathy are genetic. That usually means one of the parents is a sociopath, and sociopaths are notoriously bad parents. If a child is born with the traits, bad parenting can make them develop the full disorder.
But even if a child with the traits gets good parenting, the disorder can develop. Parents who have a child at risk of developing sociopathy need to take extra steps to help the child overcome his or her predisposition, but the parents may not realize it. And in some cases, even the best parenting is not enough to overcome negative genetics.
It is also possible for a mostly normal child who has extremely an extremely bad growth experience—such as being moved from foster home to foster home as a baby—can develop the disorder.
Accept and avoid
Please understand that I am not picking on Kyle. He’s obviously given a lot of thought to his experience with a sociopathic woman, and is trying to understand what happened. He has a reasonably good handle on normal behavior and normal motivations.
His letter simply provided me with an opportunity to illustrate that what we know and understand about normal human behavior simply does not apply to sociopaths. Thank you, Kyle, for allowing me to quote you.
In the end, we may not be able to truly comprehend sociopaths. The way they go through life is just too foreign to our natures. We must simply accept that they are very, very different from us, learn to recognize the symptoms, and if we see them, run for the hills.
I ordered that book earlier, i can’t wait for it to come.
It’s baffling to me that I have let a woman who has been out of my life for over 30 years affect me so much. trying to make her love me. Through other people that never will. WTF?
Am I unconciously searching them out, not them me? It would seem to be.
Hello Fly: Thank you for sharing the epiphany. So we want appreciation, and we help . . . and we set out the “welcome” sign to every needy leech that saunters down the road?
I’ll have to think about that, because I’ve got more than 2 or 3 of these creatures in my own past.
I love how we all help each other to understand the “incomprehensible.”
reading, reading. worried about Bailey………..I know her pain so well. She is me 13 months ago.
Exactly, Fly. We know how it is.
Dear Fly,
I am so glad that this “ah ha” moment has come. I’ve had so many “ah ha” moments throughout this “adventure.”
In the past when dealing with the Ps I’ve only done a “half-fast” job because I never got to the root of why I did the things I did. What MY problem was.
Like you, I find it was rooted in early abuse and dysfunction, and you know the funny (odd) thing about it is that the more I know about it, the early abuse, and realize the source of it, the less I despise her for it, the less angry I am. It isn’t that I am just “blame-placing” on to her, it is that I am finally understanding ME and why I do the things I do, why I think the things I think, and it is like the anger is leaving finally.
Not just anger at the Ps, but anger and frustration at my mother (I am NC with her) and even the anger at myself is fading away. ((((hugs)))) Glad you’re here Fly! This is a healing place.
One thing that I notice is how people (who had relationships with a s/p) view their experiences and history with “normal eyes”. And when I see them I try hard to direct them to sites that can best answer some if not all of their questions and concerns. Sometimes I feel more like an ambassador for these site. One site of course (my favorite) is LoveFraud. I try to do what little I can but sincerely am not trained in this field. All I (and that is only if they want to listen) can do is tell them my story and that I only do when we get to a trust level I feel comfortable with. I feel by directing them the these sites. It allow more resources and opportunities for those in need and those that “see through normal eyes”….
Kathy, Rune and truebeliever:
Rune is right. The bankruptcy laws have changed — those changes were George Bush’s present to the credit card industry. He sold everybody the bill of goods that people were going out and having a fine old time on their credit cards before they filed. The reality is most people end up in bankruptcy because of death of a spouse, divorce, medical bills because they lack of health insurance — in sum, a climactic life altering event.
These days, if you file for bankruptcy, you’re initially jammed into a 5 year wage-earner plan in which the debts are cut and you are then supposed to pay over the next 5 years.
Of course, we’ve seen the genius of that plan — all the homeowners who were wiped out by Katrina are still on the hook for mortgages on houses which no longer exist. Also, bankruptcy judges and experts say that most people are so close to the edge financially (ie barely earn enough) to pay their living expenses that they can’t stay on the plan. All it takes is one small emergency (ie car transmission dies) and they’re back in the hole.
In your case, Kathy, I suspect you were given a “straight” bankruptcy — you filed, they netted your assets against your debts, and used whatever you had to pay your debtors. I’m not exactly certain how it works today.
I suspect the court could fix truebeliever’s portion of the debt and then assign the 5 year payout. The creditors would be estopped (legal word) from going after truebeliever for the portion of the ex’s debt.
But, Rune is right. The creditors don’t give a damn who ageed to what in the divorce. They only want their money. And in this economy they’ll go after whomever they think has it.
Thanks, Matt. You’re right. It was a simple bankruptcy, and it was almost 20 years ago. I had no assets, so beyond the seven-year hit on my credit rating, that was the end of it.
Clearly, you and Rune are more up-to-date on this than me.
Matt, I know there are FEDERAL bankrupt laws, but aren’t they also different in each state as well? I know in some states (in the past) you could not exempt your house from the bankruptsy but in Arkansas you could exempt 40 acres and your house, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE HOUSE WAS WORTH. I know some people who had a huge house, they borrowed money and paid off the house, then filed bankruptsy for the OTHER DEBTS AND CAME OUT FREE AND CLEAR ON THE BIG HOUSE AND 40 ACRES, which they then sold and had money left over. I thought that was such a MISUSE of the law.
Some states would only let you keep X amount of equity in your home, but few let you keep ANY AMOUNT of equity in your home which Arkansas did at the time. (that is years ago so don’t know what the rules are now since the changes in the laws.)
I know that just about any law can be circumvented in some ways by enough cunning and pre-planning, which of course the Ps seem to be good at. People here in my area frequently “impoversish” the parents by giving assets to the children, then when the parents are “destitute” because they ahve given all their assets to their kids, they go on medicaide and go to a STATE PAID FOR NURSING HOME so that neither they nor their children have to bear the expense of their care.
There are even attorneys who specialize in this kind of “estate planning” which IS LEGAL, but I think immoral. If you have the assets to pay for your own care in old age I think you should pay it, and if you aren’t then able to leave a bundle for your kids, isn’t that why you worked, so you could pay your own bills? A great many people seem to think that they are ENTITLED to have the taxpayers pick up the tab for their livelyhood and care. To me that is so “P-ish” it stinks.
OOPS! getting on a rant here, got to quit! LOL
Oxy: yes, bankruptcy is handled in federal court, but states also have different rules that also apply, as you mentioned. I think Florida had the same attitude as Arkansas about exempting the “homestead.” Other states put a cap on the amount one could keep.
Although P’s like to circumvent rules, Matt is correct about the current tragedy in the bankruptcy laws.
Someone once said to me that “Bankruptcy is the legal equivalent of forgiveness.” The changes to the law from the past administration have led to the quagmire Matt describes. The people who most need a fresh start now are still beaten down, even after going through the additional trauma of bankruptcy.
One other note, I read recently that those changes to the bankruptcy laws, making it impossible to erase credit card debt, shifted risk onto the mortgage companies, which has contributed heavily to the wreckage in the mortgage industry. Once again, “the law of unintended consequences.”