We’ve discussed many of the sociopath’s traits, such as his missing empathy and compassion; his tendency to remorseless interpersonal exploitation; and proclivity to audacious acts of lying, deception and sundry other violating behaviors.
Now, I’m tempted to add to the mix what I call the sociopath’s tendency to “irrational optimism.”
By “irrational optimism,” I mean the sociopath’s irrationally optimistic belief, if not conviction, that he’ll either evade or, somehow, otherwise prevail over, the real, probable consequences of his actions.
Consider this brief, hypothetical interaction between a sociopath and his partner, who learns with certainty that he, the sociopath, has been cheating on her with three different women simultaneously:
Partner: How could you do that?
Sociopath: Do what?
Partner: Sleep with three different women behind my back. Are you f*cking demented?
Sociopath: First of all, that’s abusive. So stop right there and don’t abuse me. Second, I didn’t sleep with f*cking anybody. Not that I haven’t been tempted, given how lame our sex life is.
Partner: Why are you lying? I know who these women are, and I can prove you’ve been sleeping with them. Do you think I’m that f*cking stupid?
Sociopath: Let me ask you something. Why the hell would I sleep with three women and risk getting some f*cking STD? Think about it. You know me”¦or maybe you don’t? Does that make any sense?
The sociopath here is (or was) irrationally optimistic on two levels—first, that he’d be able to perpetrate this caper, undetected, indefinitely; and second that, once busted (as, now, he is) he’ll be able to squirm his way out of accountability.
We could address many aspects of this interaction, but I’d like to emphasize his last argument: “Let me ask you something. Why the hell would I sleep with three women and risk getting some f*cking STD? Think about it. You know me”¦or do you? Does that make any sense?”
This argument captures, I think, the sociopath’s “irrational optimism” beautifully. In offering the glibly insulting invitation to “think about it,” he makes a spectacle of his audacity and contempt: he really expects, and believes his partner should, accept his invitation [to think about it].
But even more than expecting her to “think about it,” which is outrageous enough, he expects her, in his irrational optimism, actually to be persuaded by his argument. In his irrational optimism, he is hopeful, if not confident, that she’ll choose to disbelieve the evidence she holds indisputably in her hands in favor of accepting his insulting logic.
How classically sociopathic is this?
More importantly, what contributes to the sociopath’s irrational optimism?
We might begin with his malignant sense of entitlement—that is, the sociopath’s belief that he is entitled to obtain the gratifications he wants. One of the most dangerous aspects of the attitude of entitlement is how it renders impotent—denudes of power—rule, limits and laws.
When you feel entitled to something, if it’s not accomodatingly forthcoming, you feel entitled to take it. You’ve laid, in your entitlement, a kind of psychic possession of what it is you want, so that now it becomes, in your mind, yours—specifically, your right to have.
And so if someone (or something) obstructs your seizing what now, in your mind, is your right to possess, then you are free to take it—to take, in fact, whatever is yours—by any means necessary.
Conferring this entitled status upon oneself encourages the irrationally optimistic view that, one way or another, accomodation looms”¦it must!
Closely related to this is the sociopath’s grandiosity: he believes he can and should succeed at his high-wire machinations because he’s that good, that clever and—it can’t be stressed enough—that entitled.
His grandiosity may take the form of thoughts like, “Sure, normal guys couldn’t pull this shit off, but I’m not your normal guy.”
And so, when you feel like you can do things that others can’t—especially things unsupported by “reality—”this is grandiosity. And grandiosity feeds, I believe, very directly, the sociopath’s tendency to irrational optimism.
Then there is the sociopath’s contempt, so inseparable from his grandiosity. As we discussed, the sociopath, in the example above, expects his insulting argument to succeed, either because he’s convinced he’s smart, clever and persuasive enough to be found so convincing, or else he’s convinced that his partner is dumb, naïve and/or desperate enough to believe him. (Or both!)
As a consequence, the sociopath’s contempt leaves him at constant risk of underestimating others, and overestimating himself. In his irrational optimism, fed by his contempt, he fails to appreciate how close he is always is—perhaps just one more reckless risk away—from being busted.
What else feeds the sociopath’s irrational optimism? How about his stupidity?
This may sound provocative, but let me explain. I suggest that blind faith supports a perspective of irrational optimism, and the sociopath operates with a kind of blind faith. That is, he operates in the blind faith that, somehow or other, he’ll escape accountability for his latest transgression.
Where does his blind faith come from? Two good sources, I’d suggest, are his grandiosity and arrogance—they blind him, I contend, to certain realities, effectively making him stupid on some level.
And his stupidity reinforces his irrational optimism.
Quite obviously, I’m not talking I.Q. stupidity, but rather judgement-level stupidity. The sociopath’s personality pathology mars his capacity to make wise, intelligent judgements in many circumstances.
(My use of “he” in this article is a convenience, not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors and attitudes discussed. This article is copyrighted © 2009 by Steve Becker, LCSW).
Kim,
really? what makes you think it has to do with her mother?
Other than the fact that everything has to do with mothers?
really interesting stories, here.
i appreciate hearing the stories other’s have about s/p/n’s. they are helpful in that we realize that they are all alike — it’s really spooky — and i for one, feel connected and safe with others who really understand the falsity of their entire being!
spath-hole came over once and said … no kiddin’ …
you know what they call me on the street?
the TRUTH! everyone knows how for-real i am.
WTF!?
(confession: i used to think that was hot!)
Sky, well she and her mother fought the night before she and Caylee dissapeared for 30 days. Her mother was furious because Casey had written forged checks on grandmas’ account that was supposed to support grandpa in his assisted living facility. Casey’s Mom said, “”You’ve got to go.” Casey apparently said something like, “You’ll never see your grand-daughter again…..and Mom responded, “shit, I’ve got so much on you, I’ll get custody of her, I’m the one whose raised her.” So next afternoon was the last time Casey’s Dad ever saw Caylee.
Casey was supposedly very jealous of Caylee. She broke up with one of her boyfriends because she said,”you love Caylee more than you love me.”
She always resented the fact that her mom held Caylee before she did, and she freely admitted that Caylee was more bonded to her mother than she was to her.
At one point, her mother said to her, “Casey, if anything has happened to Caylee it will kill me.” Casey’s response? “Oh well.”
It just makes sense to me. She wanted to win, when Mom was done….the game was up, her mask was off, and she was on her own.
Oh yeah, and this too. When she was first interviewed by the detectives, lying through her teeth, and they found out she was lying, they asked her why she would lie, if her primary concern was to find her daughter, and she said, “because I knew my mom would kill me.” This just tells me that her emotional energy is focussed on her mom, not on her child….
Kim,
that’s more disgusting than the reasons I had attributed to her. But doesn’t that remind you of the sacrificial substitute victims from Violence and the Sacred?
Instead of killing her mom, she killed someone her mom really loves. And the victim was close enough to her mom that she could be also be a “subsitute”.
That’s what got me reading the book to begin with. I noticed the xP was substituting me for his mom. It was really subtle, but I could FEEL it somehow. The only clues he actually gave were that he told me I reminded him of his mom (he said it with a sweet smile) and then he wouldn’t let me go to his dad’s funeral.
The P’s are soooo weird.
Sky, You have to remember that the whole premise of, Violence and the Sacrid is that evil is always essentially elsewhere. It is never in me. Also, there must always be rtetribution for human evil, hence the idea of sacrifice. The substitute victim is chosen because they are both the same, and different from the group they are saving.
I can see your point that you were a substitute for MIL, but I can’t see Casey as attributing evil to Caylee. Maybe to her mother. It’s more convoluted and complex, don’t you think?
No Kim, the sacrificial victim must be pure and innocent. She doesn’t attribute evil to Caylee, she knows Caylee is innocent. Remember Jesus. Also, in some muslim cultures, if a man commits an offense, rather than killing him several elders will rape his sister. She usually will kill herself after that.
The sacrificial victim must not be guilty of any part of the crime because that would then lead to reciprocal violence. The victim has to be an “other” or at least someone who can’t take revenge or have someone take revenge for her.
The whole thing is really bizarre to me, but what’s even more bizarre is that the P’s (who mostly don’t do much reading or thinking at all) exhibit the behaviors/thinking process of a primitive society.
The truth is the book was very difficult for me to comprehend but I took lots of notes and I read lots of reviews to help me understand it better. I think part of the problem is that the guy is French and he takes forever to make his point. Plus, I have to admit that since I found out what the xP was, I have not been able to think. It’s like half my brain was cut off. When I read, I have to read each page about 5 times.
Hey, you’re not alone. I found it to be very difficult reading. And yes, You’re right the victim must be pure, but it represents all the evil in the group.
This is really pretty fundamental. You see it on the play ground, in the workplace, in the family. Someone is scapegoated and it is agreed upon by the whole group. It’s tragic and twisted but it happens everyday.
Kim you and I should write a book about sociopaths and how they function in regards to the Sacred. LOL. It will be called, “everything I ever needed to know, I learned from my sociopath”
GUARANTEED BEST SELLER.
OH! You mean the STORY! Yes I’m familiar with the story driven psychopath. They tell a story with so many details that they begin to believe it themselves. Often times they will create supportive evidence by recruiting friends who believe different parts of the story. When accumulated together, so many different people believing their own parts of the story, it becomes real to the psychopath and to the mark as well.
Frame control is such an esoteric term. Lets just use story.
Story is not complex. It’s like, when we used to believe the world was flat. EVERYONE believed it. there was all kinds of conclusive evidence. Based on that evidence, we could assume other things, like: you will fall off the edge of the earth if you sail too far. (gaslighting)
If you add enough details, supporting evidence and the faith of the true believers, you have a story that even the sociopath that made it up will believe. it’s all about the details.
But how can I add this to my book, “all I’ve ever needed to know I learned from my sociopath”?