Sociopaths who posture as insightful and self-aware are some of the most dangerous predators around.
When I use the terms pseudo insightful and pseudo sensitive, I’m referring to the sociopath’s manipulative efforts to seem some combination of vulnerable, self-aware, sensitive and compassionate.
For some sociopaths this deception is conscious, while for others it is so seamlessly woven into their modus operandi as to feel (for them), at least in the moment, almost authentic.
Even the normal individual, low in sociopathic traits, may struggle to distinguish his deception from authenticity when finding himself “performing” in a mode in which he feels masterfully confident and comfortable—for instance, pitching a sale; or making a presentation, or speech.
But what factors make the sociopath’s “insight” and “sensitivity” pseudo versus authentic?
There is, first of all, the manipulative function of the sociopath’s pseudo sensitivity. Authentically insightful individuals use their insight and self-awareness not merely to better protect themselves and their interests, but also to better understand themselves and others.
Sociopaths, however, always wanting something from others, oriented as they are to wanting to take something from others, use their “pseudo” insight and self-awareness for exploitive purposes.
For instance, the sociopath’s interest isn’t to get to know and understand you better for purposes of increasing his depth of connection with you; rather, his interest to establish unobstructed access to you is about positioning himself to take something from you that he wants—whether you’re ready to offer it or not, and whether it’s in your best interest to offer it or not.
In other words, the sociopath is never interested in you; he is always, and only, interested in what he can take from you.
This applies also to the sociopath’s invitation to appreciate his pseudo display of vulnerability. This may take the form of his “startling sensitivity” and self-awareness. If he reads you correctly—as someone, say, who values vulnerability and substance—then he may regale you with “apparent” evidence of his capacity to be wounded; to manifest sensitive emotions; to position himself as someone who’s “in touch” with his feelings.
As always, how much he believes his performance in the moment (versus consciously recognizing it as bogus or manipulative) varies from sociopath to sociopath and from circumstance to circumstance.
Paradoxically, a more “self-aware” sociopath will recognize his fraudulence better than a less self-aware sociopath, who may be more prone to denial, self-delusion, and the belief that, at least temporarily, he really is the role he’s playing.
Regardless, sociopaths play the “self-aware,” “vulnerable” card (consciously or not) ultimately for grooming purposes—specifically, for purposes of softening your defenses and encouraging, coaxing out, your vulnerability.
This is because the less guarded, the more disarmed you are—in a word, the more vulnerable you are—the greater (the sociopath calculates) are his chances of taking from you what he wants.
Now let me apply some of these ideas to a hypothetical, real-life scenario: Let us say you are on a blind date with a very charismatic, charming sociopath. There is seemingly very intense chemistry. He watches you in a very flattering, lusting way, feasting his eyes on you all night. He tells you how attractive he finds you, that he’s mesmerized by you.
Now he isn’t necessarily lying. He could be lying, we know that, in which case his manipulation is that much more blatantly and manifestly sociopathic. But it’s also possible that he isn’t lying—that is, that he feels, in the moment, that what he’s telling you he feels is true; or, that he’s convinced himself that everything he’s telling you is true.
And so his sociopathy can’t necessarily be traced to his lying, because in this instance he may not perceive himself as lying, and, in a certain sense, he may not be lying. His sociopathy, rather, can more accurately be identified in his underlying, preexisting agenda which, in our hypothetical scenario, come hell or high water, is to “nail” you.
He made this his mission the moment he laid eyes on you and found you sexually attractive enough to make this his intention. He feels quite thrilled—perhaps even a little giddy and delighted—that you’ve proven attractive enough (in a sense, cooperative enough) to elicit his lust, which now enables him to pursue his agenda with you.
I don’t mean to suggest that this is the only agenda our hypothetical sociopath could be pursuing with you. It’s possible that he (or another sociopath) might play things differently, by approaching his interests with more or less patience; more or less calculated, disguised subterfuge.
And it’s possible that our sociopath, or a different sociopath, on this same first, blind date, might have an entirely different set of intentions, warranting a very different approach to meeting them. For instance, he or she may be a golddigging sociopath—a financial predator—less than a sexual exploiter.
However, this is what my hypothetical sociopath wants in this particular situation; accordingly, he’s going to pull out all the stops to land you in the “sack” or, one way or another, land himself in your pants.
Because all that matters—and in essence, what it always and only boils down to—is what he wants.
And so our sociopath, on meeting you and establishing his sexual interest, feels glad, elated, even excited that you bring something he wants. He may feel, beyond that, primitive gratitude that you haven’t disappointed him in this respect. Nothing, after all, could be more depresssing, more boring and less tolerable than, on his having met you, his discovering that, alas, you have nothing to give him that he wants.
Incidentally, this experience—his experience—of your uselessness elicits any number of possible reactions, including irritation, resentment, utter contempt, annoyance, and excruciating disappointment and boredom.
It is bad enough (for you) that you are only, and will never be more than, an object to the sociopath. However, for the sociopath, the fact that you are always only an object to him isn’t necessarily a problem; it is when your usefuleness as an object has run its course that the sociopath is most displeased and agitated, and when he is most likely to unmask himself as the cold, heartless person he is.
However, in our hypothetical scenario, as we’ve established, you do indeed have something he wants: he finds you gorgeous. And so in his relief, in his gladness, in his heady gratitude that you have something he wants—something that he can now can set about taking—a psychological transmutation occurs.
The sociopath’s gratitude, on discovering that you have something he wants, becomes primitively transmuted into a form of idealization—of you!
And in his primitive, corrupt idealization, the sociopath is prone to convincing himself, and you, of the sincerity of his ebulliant flattery and appreciation. So much so that when, as previously noted, he tells you he’s mesmerized by you, he may mean it, or think he means it, and he may seem and, indeed, be sincere when he says this.
But what mesmerizes him is you-the-object, not you-the-person. He is mesmerized not by the substantive you, but by his fantasy of what he imagines you will give him, or what he’ll soon coax from you or, if necessary, take from you.
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2010 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is for convenience’s sake, not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors discussed.)
THIS IS OFF-TOPIC, BUT IT’S BURNING A HOLE IN MY MIND:
I have been dealing with the president of a volunteer activist group, whom I’ll call “Dan,” who is becoming more and more, for lack of a better word, toxic. I ask a question or make a request, and Dan answers back, repeating back to me a question I didn’t ask. Typical is something like this:
ME: I was wondering if we could publicize Mark’s ideas a little more.
DAN: I would have liked to include Mark in the conference presentations, but he comes across as angry and has poor presentation skills.
ME: I agree, but his ideas are unique. Do you think he might benefit from media training? If you can think of any others occasionally who might benefit from it, too, one or two can stay with me.
DAN: Mark has made it clear that he wants nothing to do with our group. And by the way, are you saying that the media ignore our issue because we don’t have enough media training? And we can’t afford to fly in a dozen people for training.
ME: That’s unfortunate about Mark. But it’s not him that I wish to promote, but his ideas. Do you think his colleague, Craig, could make a presentation or go on radio talk shows?
For the future, we might make presentation time for Mark conditional on his not talking down our group. He might behave if he sees an opportunity to go on the radio or speak at a conference.
I didn’t suggest we fly in a dozen people for training, just Mark — and he lives in this city.
No, I don’t think the media ignore us for lack of “trained” radio guests. Instead, we would get more coverage if we narrowed down more relevant topics for these talk shows.
DAN: [No answer about Craig.] You can put Mark on the radio if you want. [No answer about whether this is conditional.] As I’ve said before, media training will not get the media to give our issue more attention, and I can’t believe you are still arguing with me on this point.
ME: I didn’t say that media training would get us more media attention, nor did I say that a dozen people should get media training. I was asking about one person, who you had said had poor presentation skills. I was seeking to solve that problem, and when you said Mark didn’t like us anyway, I suggested Craig. I also offered accommodations for our supporters if you choose to send any here for training.
Is there something I’m not understanding here?
DAN: You never listen to me. Now stop criticizing Joe’s work in booking people for talk shows. He’s done a great job.
ARE YOU SICK TO YOUR STOMACH YET? I sure am. What is this called? Is it sociopathy, psychopathy, or being just plain nuts? Or am I the crazy one? If I still support this cause with all my heart and soul, what am I to do when I can’t even open these e-mails without a sense of dread?
I’ve even read a self-help book about communicating with men in the workplace. Nothing helps!
Dear Sister-sister,
It’s called CONTROL. NO you are NOT the crazy one, this is manipulation.
READ “SNAKES IN SUITS”—and it isn’t easy to control this kind of person. Good luck.
Mike –
At some point it became a big deal because Donna felt the need to intervene and delete due what was deemed personal attacks by some of us. It happens sometimes and Donna always reminds us to be respectful of others here at LF. Its a good site. And I do hope your above post offered what you intended it to…reassurance to Des.
You have satisified my curiosity and answered my question. I see now that you had direct questions for Steve regarding his article. I was not privvy to the entire thread, so thank you for explaining about what (as you said) “prompted your participation here.” I dont feel it necessary for Steve to share further accounts of anything.
Thanks again. LTL
LTL,
I am grateful for my own standing with myself that the branch of the discussion Donna A felt the need to purge did not start with one of my posts.
Thank you for your open-mindedness.
You’ve suggested this book to me before — about someone Dan has had to contend with over the past year and a half. Dan has come under fire from some people who make him look benign by comparison. That’s the group this has become. To be honest, I wonder how Dan holds it together. He seems to be the gentlest animal in the zoo.
And I can’t totally throw away 100% of Dan. He takes phone calls from panicked people all over the world and gives them hope.
So you can imagine my predicament, wanting to keep supporting this cause. But it’s full of controlling, toxic, and unfortunately fiercely talented, people.
They seem to be running the only game in town. I’ve found a few among them who seem to understand that activism doesn’t entitle them to go on a worldwide rampage. But they’re just as beleaguered as I am. I’ve even gone paranoid — wondering if the U.S. government has placed some of these people here to confuse our mission.
The strange thing is that Dan has done a lot for this movement. He’s the most organized, stable, light-in-the-storm leader for us. He’s come under a lot of fire for the past year, but the board stands by him.
Enough! What am I to do about my own falling apart, personally? I feel like I’m living on the edge of insanity, wondering about my own part in creating this mess.
And then, strangely enough, a “voice” (not really a literal voice, just a strong feeling — I’m not schizo — yet) kept telling me yesterday: “You are the most loyal, beautiful, precious person in the world. These people who don’t appreciate you are wrong, and it’s their loss. Let your light shine.” Maybe it’s my friend who died over a year ago and is still with me, I feel. Crazy as it sounds! I believe they killed her with all this.
Maybe I should ask around about people’s encounters with Dan. Most of the charges against him are ridiculous and ego-driven. But what about him is true? He’s in some kind of legal trouble with a political group he used to lead, too. Paranoia . . . and what about the millionaire who supports our group? He’s really calling the shots here. Whoa.
Mike –
I have learned that it doesnt matter so much who/how it starts.. its the recognition that it happened, and all involved (Before during or after) or simply viewing… can learn and grow from it.
We all can learn and grow with an open-mind. No blaming or boasting…just accepting what is and what can be better as we go!
Everyone has something valuable to offer here. Some personalities arent always a match for others, but we find a way to connect , or share or pass through or just be. Its a healing place as well as a place with many different experiences and diverse opinions. I like that Donna welcomes anyone here as long as they are respectful of others. I can learn something or relate to something from nearly every post! Thanks
Dear Sister-sister,
Whatever the “cause” it seems to me in all-volunteer groups and in groups with some paid directors and some volunteer groups there are always A few “trouble-makers” whether it is volunteering at the hospital, or the Red Cross or Boy Scouts.
Some of the volunteers and some of the paid workers are psychopaths or just “trouble makers” who for whatever reason like to keep drama stirred up. There even seems to be some in churches and other religious organizations.
Many times because people will “walk on egg shells” to keep from offending a volunteer or a paid worker, there are some pretty dysfunctional things go on. The same in many places I have worked. It just seems that there is always a “Snake in a suit” in about any organization you want to name….and they have their own agendas.
If it makes you “feel crazy” then you are probably dealing with a “snake” and from the conversation you wrote, sounds to me like this CONTROLLER is one of “them.”
If this cause (whatever it is) is the only game in town and you want to work for THAT CAUSE only, then you must figure a way out of the crazy-making or find another cause.
Personally, I’d find another cause I think, but that is just me. I don’t like being around people who pull this kind of crap. I am fortunate to be retired and don’t have to contend with it at work to bring home a play check. I did for most of my career one way or another, I think many of us have done so. I just know that I am no longer tolerant of this type of thing so That I can function well around it. I’m too “old and cranky” to put up with too much of that crap any more.
As you know, just getting away from being UNDER their control is about the only way to deal with them. Or, changing your “give a chit” factor. Good luck.
Sistersister, I like the book,”Stop Bring Manipulated,” by George H. Green and Carolyn Cotter. Very common sense and doable. Keep listening to your inner voice. And go deaf to any you think are trying to manipulate…First lesson.
Thanks, OxD. I do know this phenomenon. I got ostracized from my church when a “shark” intervened, and I know the type. The problem is when the president of the premier organization in the world handling this issue has everyone in his thrall. Even the board. I tried to have a discussion with them last year, but instead rumors were thrown around that I’d really lost it. And the company of the rest of the people calling for his ouster is worse.
I’m sorry, this cause is crucial to people’s lives. It is literally life-and-death, and I’ve been committed to it for almost 20 years.
It’s OK if you don’t want to comment more on this.
I think I AM going to quit most contact with this organization, but I have to be careful what I say to them because I need the help of several people who are still inside, as resources for a book I’m working on. And that’s been my issue, maybe my own personal issue, through this whole ordeal of working with the group: Being committed to complete projects held hostage to the egoes of other people whose help I desperately needed. (Is that one of your examples of “shark” behavior? LOL.)
Ironically, I’m going to have to become the most dangerous “shark” to get this book done.
Thanks for the book suggestions, Kim and OxD. I’m going to definitely read both of them. My grief is over the death of my own self-image as the ultimate shark-wrestler. I thought I could survive anything. Guess it’s not worth it to be a survivor. I’ll be thriver instead.