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.
Hello Donna:
In trying to understand, a sociopath as an extrovert.
Ok . The one that I knew was quiet, but had all the traits of an S, the lack of empathy, lying, cold and when it was obvious he wanted something, displayed the horriffic confusing behavior as that of a young child that was being so ill treated. There were major tantrums to turn the situation to his favor, and after he achieved his goals had this gloating that was so strange, almost euphoric when he got his way after extreme anger.
Trying to understand this, and over time making my own observations I assumed that he was more than likely abused emotionally and not loved as “typical, or most children”, therefore that created this lack of empathy and not being able to get close to people he was in a relationshipwith, afraid to be let down because as a child he was never loved. A question I had asked him once. “You were never loved as a child”? And another time I asked after being so confused with this irratic behavior, I asked and stated”, “You were abused emotionally as a child”?.
With those satements, the look I had seen come across his face was not like a look I recognized, along with a deep sadness and a long puase. I did not receive an answer. There was always an answer from S/P. Did that statement tap into something? Normally any questions to his behavior and emotions would anger him. These two statements and questions touched another side.
As for genetics yes there were instances I had learned of with one of the S’s parents and their anger, and lack of empathy.
I have said he comes across as being quiet initially, another mask of the S/P?. It makes him more believable and seemingly to be in control? Also because there is a constant conflict of analyzing the situation to his advantage within? The overview of lack of empathy and lying were superior to the personality and gradiose he had for himself.
So to pull it together in this case, it may have been genetics and being predisposed, emotionally unloved by parents, and other instances. The mother was in an abusive relationship with S’S biological father, and she had physical illness throughtout her life, and the fact that S’s, (former partner left him cold for another partner after a long term relationship of 17 yrs.). Which brought out more lack of empathy and strengthened that, along with the fear it may happen again, so in order to survive, maintain the lack of empathy and not love, and lie because it may happen again.
GREAT ARTICLE, BTW!!! And, Welcome Kyle!
Yesterday we were talking about the psychopathic ORGANIZATIONS and how the larger the organization the easier it seems to be to manipulate whole groups of people by psychopathic leaders…..cults, like Jim Jones, etc. and the many “cult-like” religious organizations.
All start out seemingly for a GOOD PURPOSE and then “morph” into something sinister.
A good example was a news article I was forwarded today about the ASPA suing Ringling Brothers Circus in federal court. The law suit is an attempt to do away with the Circus Elephant because the elephants are “controlled by a small stick called a bull hook” rather than “trained” by the reward system of “be a good elephant and I will give you an apple.”
Here is a copy of the article from the NY times. I hope this doesn’t violate any copywrite prohibitions.
Keith Meyers/The New York Times
Among the issues is whether elephants are compliant because of positive reinforcement or fear.
By DAVID STOUT
Published: January 31, 2009
WASHINGTON One of the most iconic images of American life, that of circus elephants joined trunk-to-tail as they lumber along to delight “children of all ages,” as the old saying goes, is about to be debated in a courtroom.
Are the beasts docile because they are highly intelligent and respond well to training, reinforced with the promise of apples, carrots, water and kindness at day’s end? Or do they obey because their spirits have been broken and they fear getting hit by their trainers?
These are among the questions that will be asked when a lawsuit by a coalition of animal rights’ groups against the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey circus and its parent company opens in federal court here on Wednesday.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs say the circus’s Asian elephants sleep and travel in cramped, filthy quarters and are routinely prodded, even bloodied, with special clubs or “bull hooks.” The idea that the animals are happy “and allowed to roam free and to socialize” is an illusion created by the circus and its parent, Feld Entertainment Inc. of Vienna, Va., the plaintiffs say.
But the defendants say in court papers that the elephants are “healthy and well cared for” and that they are attended to by veterinarians around the clock. The elephants’ quarters are roomy and well ventilated, heated when necessary, and tended by crews with shovels and hoses at the ready, the defendants say.
Moreover, they say, the club or “guide” used by a trainer is no more cruel than a leash on a dog or a bridle on a horse, and what few injuries occur are minor and easily treated.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court will try the case without a jury, at the request of the plaintiffs. They seek an injunction barring the circus from engaging in a number of practices they call cruel, including chaining the elephants for long stretches.
The defendants are asking the judge to dismiss the case. They argue that the plaintiffs have most of their “facts” wrong and are also wrong on the law, basing much of their case on the Endangered Species Act, which the defendants say Congress never intended to apply to animals in captivity.
The plaintiffs include the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute and the Fund for Animals. Tracy Silverman, a lawyer for the Animal Welfare Institute, said she expected the trial to last up to three weeks. Asked whether a settlement is possible, she replied, “Most likely not.”
A lawyer for the defense, Michelle Pardo, said that the plaintiffs’ case was “false and distorted” and that Ringling Brothers regularly passed inspections by federal, state and local authorities in its treatment of the animals. (The plaintiffs say those inspections are often rigged.)
With a shaky economy, conflicts abroad and a new president in the White House, a lawsuit over elephants may seem relatively unimportant. But people get emotional over the huge, intelligent and sociable creatures.
And there is big money at stake. Feld Entertainment says that its productions, which include ventures with the Walt Disney Company, are seen by 25 million people a year around the world, and that its 50 or so elephants are as much a part of the circus as clowns and trapeze artists.
“In effect,” the defense says, the plaintiffs “are hoping to put an end to circus elephants.”
But Ms. Silverman said, “We simply want the elephants to be treated humanely and in accordance with the law.” If her side wins, she said, Ringling Brothers “would have to stop hitting elephants with bull hooks and keeping them in chains,” except for veterinary care or another legitimate purpose.
The plaintiffs say they will introduce videotape documenting mistreatment and will call several experts on elephants, as well as some current or former Ringling Brothers trainers.
The defense says that at least one former trainer and plaintiff, Tom Rider, is not to be believed because he has been on the payroll of the animal rights’ groups. Ms. Silverman says Mr. Rider has received only “a very modest amount” of money for public relations work.
Feld Entertainment says it is committed not only to the safety and happiness of individual Asian elephants, but also to the species. It mentions having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on breeding, conservation and research programs.
The parties have been battling for years, and will continue to do so no matter what Judge Sullivan decides. Feld Entertainment, in turn, has sued the A.S.P.C.A. and other animal groups, accusing them of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. That case will be heard later, Ms. Pardo said.
The emotions run deep and not just on the plaintiffs’ side, apparently. Kenneth J. Feld, the chief executive of the circus company who took over after the death of his father, Irvin, in 1984, described elephants as his “personal passion” in a recent interview with Portfolio magazine.
“I love these animals,” Mr. Feld said.
As an animal trainer, both of wild animals AND domestic animals, I realize that trainers CAN BE brutal and hellish with ANY animal. I am also a parent and I realize that some parents can be brutish with their children. I don’t approve of any kind of “training” that is brutish or cruel.
The ASPCA like ,many large organizations started out to try to right a perceived “injustice” or fix the brutish treatment of animals. However, like many “non profit” groups, if they don’t have a “cause” going on, they don’t get donations, the “executives” who have such nice salaries for “protecting animals” lose their perks, etc. so they MUST FIND ABUSE.
While it may be appropriate to train your pet dog ONLY with positive reinforcement, to train and control (and folks that is WHAT WE HUMANS DO WITH ANIMALS IS TO TRAIN AND CONTROL THEM) a negative reinforcement is a MUST.
An elephant trainer weights probably at most 200 pounds, an elephant weights 7,000 fully grown. In order to be as safe as possib le around the elephant, the elephant is trained from “babyhood” that the man is “bigger” and more “powerful” the same way I train a calf to work as an ox.
I use mild negative reinforcement by pulling on a rope, and if the animal gives to that, the pressure is released and he gets a positive reward. The horse’s bridle works the same way. I pull on the reins, the bit pinches the horse’s mouth, the horse turns, and the pressure stops. Some people use a bit that HURTS (or even one that cuts) and I think that IS CRUEL, but that’s not thepoint, the point is that we FORCE animals to our will, whether it is a draft horse, an elephant, a trained monkey, or your pet dog. “I am the boss, do my will.”
Just as there are psychopathic people in every group of people, there are psychopathic animal trainers who use and abuse the animals without conscience, or who ENJOY inflicting suffering on animals.
There are also psychopathic people in leadership roles in what started out as good organizations, and they take control, they enjoy inflicting pain and control on others…all in the name of a good cause, of course, send in your donations.
The DUPES of these groups are not aware of what is going on with the PERSECUTION of others by the group and their leaders, and having EMPATHY for the circus elephants (or other animals) they dutifully send in their donations so the organization’s CEO and minions can have their private jets and fancy offices and spend a few well placed dollars on very public prosecution of an American icon so that they get the maximum press for their “good deeds.” All the while, there are MILLIONS of dogs and cats in this country who are being killed because of overbreeding and cheap spay and neuter is not available. There are thousands of cattle going to INHUMANE slaugher every day because of lack of oversight by the Feds whose employees are stretched thin.
I.e. while the ASPCA prosecutes Ringling Brothers over the “chaining” of an elephant or the use of a “bull hook” to control an elephant, the REAL purpose of the ASPCA is neglected….to stop reall suffering.
BTW an elephant’s skin though 1 to 1 1/2 inch thick is very sensitive, so even a touch with the hook (which is not all that sharp by the way) gives them a cue, the way you would touch your small child’s arm or grasp it to “stear” him through a crowded aisle in a store.
I do not doubt that there are SOME cruel elephant trainers who have actually HURT the animals but elephants are quite smart, and they are POWERFUL so if you abuse your power of control with them, they DO GET EVEN sometimes and I sure as heck would not be one that would abuse them because when they do get enough, they squash your head literally.
Neither would I like to be the person who “trained” elephants only with treats and as for the chaining, I can’t imagine how you could NOT keep one on a chain or in a cage in an urban area…what’ya gonna do, let it run loose?
The thing that makes me so frustrated is the way psychopaths use the emotional currency to twist things into “give me money and power” and then they run rampant.
I am open to discussion on this, so am not going to get my dander up if you disagree with me, but I just sort of got an “Ah ha” moment this morning when I read the article about Kyle and LOOKING AT PSYCHOPATHS THROUGH THE EYES OF A NORMAL PERSON, and the discusson about GROUP psychopathic stuff yesterday and then the NY Times article. It just all kind of came together to make sense to me.
Yep- accepting they behave with an alternate set of rules was KEY.
Once you “get” that it all makes sense. Their “emotions,” behaviors and words lie; they mean something entirely different than we take for granted.
For example: I thought “my” psycho missed me, was jealous I had other friends. Why? Because he acted jealous, pouted and mde scenes when others were around me.
In reality- it was not me he missed or coveted, it was my attention. This only made sense when I realized he did not want to know ANYTHING about me, though he called constantly and emailed.
He wanted my attention; I was a good source of attention. He was mad I was giving attention to someone else. I was supposed to be enthralledby him and adore him. His need for me, was purely parasitic.
In the end, he haughtly said: “I don’t even know you.” This is after a year of daily contact- but he was correct; he knew little about me aside from my name. This was startling revealed when in a conversation with another he assumed I had an older brother- I have a younger sister. He had no clue.
He hoovered me for attention after I left, because I was good at providing rapt interest. Not once did he miss me as a unique person. And I was reminded of this today- when while reading the author mentioned when in love we want to know about the loved one.
I fear that when we try to “explain S/Ps” to ourselves by looking at losses in their lives over a long period of time, we risk again being distracted by our “normal” perspective.
Is Opn: S’s former partner may have left abruptly after 17 years because s/he figured out the truth, or at least enough of it to get clear. I believe that the roots of the disorder are developed so early, that you may not understand much at all by looking at patterns in their lives.
I have lived long enough to have seen patterns from babyhood into adulthood, and I think that many patterns are there for the educated observer to see from very early on. I think that Elizabeth Conley’s guesstimate of 9% is probably close, but I also believe that S/Ps fall along a spectrum: some are mildly disordered, some are extremely disordered, and the most extremely disordered may actually be “very nice,” like Bernie Madoff, or Harris, the Columbine high school shooter, or the guy I was involved with.
And, I also wonder about the extraverted/introverted element. I know some of these can be the quiet type.
I wonder if it isn’ti nnately extroverted to take advantage. I mean psychopaths are exploitive.That’s central, and they do not exists on their own.
Rune, that’s a good point about the “extraverted” vs “introverted.”
What is an “extravert”? What is an “introvert”?
The definitions we usually use (at least I do) is that an “extravert” is OUTGOING and an “introvert” is more cautious and inward thinking, analyzing etc. BUT since the Ps have no “inner life” to analyze and they don’t “get it” about our innerlife, emotions and so on, I really don’t think they can be EITHER in the true sense of the word as since an “extravert” is one who displays their inner self to others more easily than an “introvert” who holds it inside and analyzes it, I think they APPEAR to be transparent and an extravert, but that in the true sense, they are NEITHER. Just a ROLE they play, but without any substance to it.
Yes, the alternate set of rules….I was at such a decided disadvantage when in the relationship with the S because I kept trying to understand and interpret, and even predict, his behavior with the schema that he was a “normal” person. It wasn’t until the end, when he did some monstrously cruel things that I realized all bets were off, this guy was capable of anything, and that a relationship with him was impossible.
But I did wonder about my part in it – if there were things about my personality that brought out the worst in him. Afterall, his relationship with me was one of his shortest. His relationship with his wife spanned two decades (and continues, even though she is ex-wife), and his last two girlfriends stayed with him for 2 years plus…and I lasted only 9 months. I wondered if I played a role in the relationship imploding and exploding so early.
I must have – because he certainly was the same guy in each relationship. The fact that mine ended relatively early (though not early enough) probably speaks to my wellness rather than sickness.
But don’t worry, I have no delusions that I am “well,” or I wouldnt’ have engaged in an enduring relationship with him to begin with.
I remember being struck, after the first few months, with his lack of compassion. To his sister, to me, to strangers. We were at an event where someone went into a seizure. I am not a medical doctor, and am not a hero….but all bystanders seemed helpless and I felt compelled to step in. I recruited someone else (who had a medical background) to help me, and we basically held the person until he stopped seizing.
My ex S never stepped in to help. In fact, he looked at me with what appeared to be digust, and then walked away. The only comment he made about the situation was that I was foolish to get involved.
Later I talked about this with other people (whether or not I should have gotten involved), and every one agreed that it was “legally” risky, and that there could have been repercussions for me, but that I did the “right” thing. Every one else I talked to about it said they would have done the same thing. That legally risky or not, they would feel compelled to help someone in danger.
He was disgusted. At one point when I was holding this man, I looked up at the S, and he looked at me with such clear disdain. It definitely looked like a feeling. It wasn’t “blank” it was revulsion.
we had similiar discussion on another thread about extroversion vs introversion. many researchers who use this comparison define it as “from where one obtains their energy”. for example, if i am an extravert and you put me in an office with spreadsheets and little or no contact with others, i will be exhausted by the end of the day and unmotivated. introverts who are forced to spend time with others who get their energy from thinking thughts through would be exhausted at the end of the day.
its not so much about talking a lot or a little. many extroverts ar not very talkative but NEED to be with others to get their energy.
im not sure you can say all P’s are extroverts….but they certainly need people.
Revulsion…..Contempt….yeah, I got that. He even wrote a public letter mocking my actions once.
Top extraversion- they have to be, even when they “seem” introverted …these creatures feed off of others.
OxDrover,
The plaintiff’s should be prosecuted for malicious mischief. There should be more criminal penalties attached to trifling behavior.
About 6 years ago the kids and I saw a bunch of twits picketing the circus in our town. To my absolute astonishment, one of the little feather heads was leading her dog on a pinch collar. (That’s the metal collar with the spikes that point into the dog’s flesh. When the owner tugs, the spikes dig in.) Standing there in the middle of downtown traffic for all to see was an object lesson in why elephants are chained and disciplined. Letting them roam free downtown would only frighten and endanger them, just as it would have harmed the hen-witted lass’s dog. Duh – uh! I wonder if the silly girl was “spayed”. Her kind of stupid is scary!
As someone who has personally witnessed the real maltreatment of Asian Elephants in Thailand, I have absolutely no sympathy for the plaintiff’s persecuting Ringling Brothers. These activists are gambling on our collective ignorance and arrogance, as if all Americans were as ill informed and narcissistic as they are.
Ringling Bros takes very good care of its elephants.
http://www.elephantcenter.com/default.aspx?id=5068