Let’s compare sociopathic types and ask ourselves what, if anything, they share in common? How deeply related, deeply connected, is their sociopathy? Are they close cousins, blood brothers or, perhaps, brothers altogether of a different species?
Let’s compare the classic, mythical sociopath, the serial killer—whose violent predations have been widely documented, if not sensationalized, in the media—with the arguably less glamorous, more insidious sociopathic type, the scamming telemarketing sociopath who fleeces senior citizens of their assets?
What do these personalities have in common and where, perhaps, do we find divergences between them?
Let’s begin with what we might argue these sociopathic types share in common, starting with the broader suggestion that both these types of sociopaths will have deeply exploitive predilections.
I think we can add, directly, that they’ll share a grossly defective capacity to feel empathy and, even more importantly, remorse.
More than that, they will likely share an intellectual capacity to understand that their behaviors transgress the basic conventions of respect for others’ dignity and safety. And they will also share, importantly, a striking, pathological disregard of, and indifference towards, the fact of their bald transgressions of these basic standards of conduct.
I’d also suggest that both the sociopathic killer, and the sociopathic telemarketing scammer, share a mentality characterized by their feeling absolutely entitled to the gratification they seek, however driven their need is for a specific form of gratification.
Accordingly, both these types of sociopaths will rationalize as acceptable, if not necessary, the infliction of damage on others (“death,” in the case of the serial killer), for their victims possess something these sociopaths want, and feel they must have.
And, most critically, they will share the twisted notion that what their victims have, that they (the sociopaths) want, belongs to them.
Having identified some of the commonalities between these personalities, let’s see where, if at all, we might identify possible divergences between them, and what these divergences could mean?
Is is reasonable to suggest, for example, that most sociopathic telemarketing scammers would simply be incapable of engaging in a serial killing process?
Let us assume this proposition is true—that no matter how twistedly comfortable the sociopath is who can callously scam elderly people out of their retirement assets, he is likely incapable of engaging in a process of assaulting and strangling, say, prostitutes in a string of seedy Atlantic City motels?
If true, what does this mean? If the latter sociopathic type arguably finds the proposition of murdering prostitutes as unappealing as the non-sociopath, then how closely, if at all, is he related to the serial killing sociopath who engages in these murderous behaviors?
To be clear: We have the scamming sociopath who might say, and mean sincerely, “Not in a million years could I ever do what that serial killing freak psychopath does? I can’t even relate to it!”
He might say this, and mean it, with as much confidence as the nonsociopath would say and mean it.
Therefore, does this make him a closer cousin to the nonsociopath, or to the serial killing sociopath? To whom is he more closely related, by virtue of his plausibly sincere repudiation of the serial killing sociopath’s behaviors?
I don’t see this as an easy question to answer. On one hand, I think an argument could made that this contrasting scenario, which may have validity, makes the scamming sociopath closer cousin to the nonsociopath than the serial killing sociopath.
On the surface, the serial killing sociopath seems to be expressing his “sociopathy” at such extreme, grotesque, violent levels that even lower-level sociopaths might struggle almost as genuinely as the nonsociopath to grasp, to relate to, that particular expression of this disordered mind?
But then I say, Hold on. Not so fast. Let’s not make too fast a case for too much divergence here? The commonalities, after all, remain; and they are compelling commonalities.
I have written elsewhere that some sociopaths may simply not be comfortable with blood”¦or perpetrating violence directly, in a gruesome fashion.
But does this necessarily make them less sociopathic?
Any more than a butcher, who spends his time carving-up hides of beef all day, is any more sociopathic than the individual who would find that occupation horrifying?
For some sociopaths their declining to perpetrate direct violence may reflect nothing more than their idiosyncratic disinclinations and revulsions, which in and of themselves are unrelated to sociopathy.
When we refer to the sociopath, therefore, we come back, ultimately, as always, to a mentality—a mentality from which certain attitudes and behaviors can be generally anticipated, but not always specifically predicted?
What can we predictably expect from these mentalities in general? For one, some very diverse behavioral expressions of their disorder, ranging from the serial killing machine to the telemarketing scammer, neither of whom would necessarily derive much gratification were they to substitute each others’ exploitive behaviors.
In between, we can expect a general range of attitudes and behaviors reflecting a shocking disregard of others’ space, boundaries and dignity, with the equally shocking missing experience of remorse for the impact these transgressive behaviors have on their victims.
This is why, ultimately, I conclude, for now, by suggesting that the serial killer and telemarketing scammer, while divergent animals in certain respects are, in fact, more closely related than the behavioral manifestations of their sociopathy might indicate?
Whether they are brothers, first or second cousins”¦this might be debatable. But they are blood relatives, to be sure.
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2011 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is for convenience’s sake and not to imply that females aren’t capable of the attitudes and behaviors discussed.)
bluejay
HeavenRoaming,
I was not claiming that my co-worker is a sociopath, just being aware that she has a propensity to make up stories about herself, usually medical dramas (although she has talked about other issues) that have played out at her home, in the ER, or the hospital. Some ailments are true (not bogus), having evidence of the truth (she had to wear some type of a heart monitor due to having heart problems), but some of her stories, I question (I seem to be the only staff that heard about her having a brain tumor). I have never known anyone at her age, having so many medical issues. She loves to talk, be around people, a definite people person. I talk to her, but half-believe whatever she tells me (especially if she’s talking about anything not related to work).
Ox Drover
Dear Heaven Roaming,
I disagree with you there. One of the great inventors, William P. Lear who invented the car radio among other things as well as the 8 track tape players etc. (hundreds of patents) was I think VERY high in psychopathic traits, he was continually unfaithful to his many wives, and many other things he did that I would label high in P-traits, but quite a successful inventor. High risk taker and made and lost several fortunes (my late husband worked for him and was his personal pilot for several years and knew him very well). IQ is totally separate from psychopathic traits and I think there are MANY people who are very talented in the arts and sciences who are quite high in psychopathic traits (look at many of the singers and ctors such as Mel Gibson, etc)
You are right about some of the low level criminals and generally dumb psychopaths, but read Robert Hare’s book “Snakes in suits, when psychopaths go to work” and you will see that many psychopaths are in the “corner office” and like Bernie Madoff who scammed BILLIONS of dollars, or the Enron executives who scammed millions of dollars each, etc. Research shows that psychopaths IQ pretty well fits the Bell Curve of the general population with everything from severely retarded to genius levels.
I admit that many of the people at our work who have high P-traits would not have a job except for their manipulation, though.
lesson learned
Bluejay
I think one of the reasons a psychopaths lies are so believable is because THEY actually believe it. My exPOS could tell some whopper stories so convincing it was UNNERVING. When I found out the truth, it was SHOCKING. I think this is also why they are so successful at targeting and manipulating their victims. The manipulations work because they believe the lies they tell. I also believe that this is why they deny and/or lie more when confronted with a lie. They believe whatever twisted story they’ve told.
It’s just amazing to see it in action.
LL
kim frederick
Yeah and psychopaths with high IQ’s are the must cunning of
all.
Iread somewhere that some pathological liar can pass polygraphs, for that very reason.
HeavenRoaming
o yes actors, army men (not all of them ofcourse ) Politicians with a big P , rulers, tyrants, stock brockers , businessmen , bankers , sales guyz ect is where we will find a conc of these individuals , as far as inventors scientist are concerned i still fell there will be very few if any in this sector .
Out 6 P individuals i have encountered including my ex psychopathic wife 5 of them were just dumb idiots totally useless and repulsive.
I plan to read dr hare’s book as soon as i get hold of it.
he has very rightly labeled them as intra species predators
Thats what they exactly are . The game of prey and predator is also going on in human race its just that the predator looks like us and 99% of the population is bliss fully unaware of this fact
Oxy what do you think are there different degrees of manifestation of this disorder ? I work in IT industry i see quiet a few ppl with a conc of amoral qualities its difficult to accept that all of them belong to a different specie altogether
True-to-Self
Ted Bundy found Pedifiles repugmant. When he finally admitted to the killings and disclosed where the bodies were, he had the hardest time admitting to the Kimberly Leach murder and at least one other who was a mother. He may have thought Kimberly Leach, the 12 year old was older and that the mother was a college student.
Someone mentioned that perhaps certain Psychopaths would find scamming repugnant.
This may be silly but maybe it fits here. The game Fish World on Facebook has a couple of features, one being stealing other people’s fish. A person can buy certain protector fish like bluerays to protect their tanks from theft……or they can steal back the fish that was stolen. Crime does not pay though because a stolen fish cannot be resold.
The other feature is Sharks who prey on other fish and the blood is spilled in the water while they do this. I think you are supposed to watch also or it will not work.
My ex spath BF was a thief, lier, manipulator and found the theft feature fun, but was absolutely repulsed when I bought a shark. I admit I got rid of the shark because the blood factor bothered me also.
Could it be that some people who would buy the shark to kill the innocent fish would NEVER think of stealing?
TTS
HeavenRoaming
Hmm psychopaths with high IQ’s are probbably the ones who are very good at covering up there tracks. They are highly adapt at creating a false personality for the society but on the inside they are all the same , garbage
What is more disturbing is that socially adapt psychopaths are often good looking , grrrrrrr 🙁
Ox Drover
Dear HeavenRoaming, Dr. Leedom and several others who are interested in this Problematic population seem to agree that there is a spectrum of the disorder.
Just like “tall” and “short” or “genius” and “retarded” are on a spectrum of measurements so is psychopathic I agree. There are some that are “worse” than others, at least I think in behavior if not in their ability to “bond” to other humans. The worst of the worst of course, really don’t bond at all with other humans, but I think some of the lower levels of them might have some rudimentary herd instinct or bonding ability, but there is still so much that is unknown and I am glad that there is research going on to try to answer these questions.
We do know that some of them kill and some don’t but I think ALMOST ALL humans are capable of killing under the right circumstances. The difference between them and someone with empathy is that they can do it without any guilt or prickly conscience bothering them and for reasons that the empathic person would not even consider killing someone for. Some lower the bar to killing just for sport or for the enjoyment of the suffering of the victim.
Some people who are high in P traits seem to just be unaware of the suffering of others that they cause, or if they notice it they don’t care, but others seem to ENJOY the suffering of others, and maybe that is the “cut off” between worse and worst, I’m not sure.
True-to-Self
HeavenRoaming,
I agree with you that “real work” or creativity is not done by psychopaths. To be creative a person has to love their work and psychopaths are not capable of love or real emotion.
I suppose they could be a musician and enjoy the groupies and the drugs, but the real talent of music has to come from the soul.
It could be that the spaths on the lower end of the spectrum who do just enough to get by but mooch off of others without a trace of embarrassment do so because we don’t believe they really are psychopaths. That seemed to be the case with my exBF. His best friend didn’t think he could think his way out of a paper bag, but I knew his chief motivation was some game that he played just to see what he could get away with.
HeavenRoaming
Dear OxDrover i agree I think this is the biggest problem human race is facing. These are the individuals who are most directly responsible for destruction we see around us.
For the time being the only solution seems to be prevention
A course in psychology is a must for every decent human being.
The more people understand and accept this reality the more difficult it will become for P’s to have there way.
You guyz have a good day , i am logging off for now
Love HR