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 agree with Elizabeth that many people are capable of being both introverts and extroverts depending on the social situation in which they find themselves. Some are more successful at adapting than others. This refers to what we discussed on another thread about the Myers-Briggs types and preferences. While a given individual might be balanced enough to handle being with people in a certain setting, that individual’s natural preference might lean toward a more quiet way of being when there is a choice.
I am so attracted to the Mr. Darcy type. I have said that here before. I desire the guy who is stoic on the outside, mysterious, but generous, kind, brilliant, caring, and chewy (no wait that’s bagels), on the inside. I wonder that this sets me up perfectly to be the victim of sociopaths. I thought that I found him, my Mr. Darcy, but he was stoic on the outside and nothing on the inside. How could all my reading end up being so bad for me???
As for being an extrovert, my S certainly enjoyed social settings. He spends every weekend and several weeknights out at the bars. He is a bit of a lurker though from what I can tell, observing, often looking for the sickliest, easiest to pick off gazelle I suppose. He is capable of producing a dazzling smile here and there. Beautiful predatory eyes. Not so much an extrovert though. He reminds of of one of those amazing creatures in nature that is able to lure their prey because they look like something attractive to their victim, not really because of anything that they actually DO.
Sam,
i am with you and if the actions are not matching up quickly then ditch em. at a minimum that is a man who lacks integrity which is a very important basic quality.
trust then verify…….
Sam: A good “groomer” can set up a lot of actions that will speak very loudly to his kind, generous, savior-of-society persona. The Boy Scout leader, church leader, mental health professional, AA leader, etc., etc. Some of these people run long cons, and it can be quite a trick to distinguish the true from the faked “goodwill” gesture.
I’ve come to notice that the “groomers” like to take big credit for doing small things. The S/P I was involved with would take people to someone else’s event as if HE was the one putting on the show.
The really slippery ones are so hard to catch, and so very, very dangerous.
OxDrover:
I agree with you about an extrovert is one who displays their inner life. I’m what people call a “live-wire”. My s was an also an extrovert.
What was the difference between us? My extroversion is definitely based on my character, etc. I tell a joke, generally its based on something about myself.
My S? Never. Oh, he could swan around a room and be superficially charming. But, 5 minutes after he left, it was like he was never there. There was no “him” in the extrovert mask he presented to the world.
Donna:
Your intro to this article jumped out at me. You said “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.”
That has always nagged at me in my relationship with S. I’m the first to admit that I gave S a pass when it came to his cheating, etc. However, it was any of my other attempts to understand him or help him that generated his ire.
After numerous put-downs saying “You don’t get it. It’s an Asian thing” I decided to learn about his culture to “get it.” I was accused of prying.
When I tried to help him out legally or get him into therapy, the best I got was “It’s on my list” and the worst I was berated and told “That’s you answer to everything!”
If I asked the most innocous questions about his past or his family or his friends I was told “It’s none of your business.”
When I told him I loved him, but I thought we should go into couple’s counseling because it was clear to me that we weren’t communicating he point blank told me he had no interest in resolving our problems.
I look back at the 15 months I was with S and the ensuing 3 months I’ve been away from him. And I keep thinking about all our encounters, and its that pattern of behavior that jumps out at me. I was his punching bag. He had no interest in me. He had no interest in us. And at the end, it was all about him and keeping the supply pipeline open and running.
Eliza: Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813 and written between the years 1796 and 1797 considered to be the era of the New Nation (1790-1828).
Good luck in finding a gentleman such as Mr. Darcy in today’s polluted world. In those days, there was no TV, no telephone, no porno on CDs or movie theatres freely exhibited in the public streets, no rag magazines exploiting women which treated us like cattle … sub human so that men can even oggle at the inside of our navels, never mind the other parts of the human anatomy.
And women wonder why there are hardly (if any) gentlemen left in society today?
Don’t get me wrong, I do know some gentlemen, but they are far and few between … and these men know they aren’t the norm in today’s screwed up society of no morals, no ethics, anything with anyone goes today.
There are a few that blog with us on this site (hi Guy’s) … and everyone knows who they are … even though one of them isn’t blogging with us today.
Peace.
about the issue of a “gentleman”….. in my definition this is a guy who is respectful, tellls the truth, does as he says/ shows integrity and is consistent in his behavior. these in my mind are basics and if he doesnt have the basics then why waste time.
the XS held doors open for me but he also threw me out of a hotel room when we weree 3 and a half hours from home and didnt call to see if i got home safely.
he was generous at Christmas time. he also bought me a nice grill. then every chance he got he threw it in my face like i owed him something and would tell me how his daughter didnt want me to have it anyway.
there is something to be said for a man who is respectful. the XS was not. never will be.
KF: I think these basic values are so significant. The problem with the S/Ps is that they can play that game for awhile, at least some of them can. I think this is also how they suck us in — they show those “basic values” at least to some degree, and then we start to trust, and then we make excuses for them when they fall short later, and then . . .
Well, we all have similar stories, don’t we!
you are right Rune. just as those red flags hit us in the face at some point, as i think back some of them were basic things like respect. and even as they continued, some of us continued to stay. if nothing else, it may help usrecognize simple bad behavior and get out faster.