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.)
[philomela] “…so it makes him angry and his reaction is to do the opposite of what a normal person would do…”
Yes!
I once got someone to admit he argued contrary to people who antagonized him. I told them it made the person he did it to a martyr for the cause of simply standing by sense when he or she did so. He had no reply.
CAmom,
Not speaking to your situation, but I think there are victimizations where it’s insulting to someone to be told to just tolerate it, and that insult gets expressed as suicidal thoughts — where suicide is as much of a risk as staying quiet. I don’t default to staying quiet when someone says they want to die. I talk to them. I don’t inherently know why I wouldn’t want to.
“Stalking the Soul” is a great book for describing/ explaining the behavior and motivations of the N/S/P and also how and why it is so devastating to the victim.
Mike, I think Steve’s point ultimately was that whether the N/S/P “knows” or doesn’t know that he is an N/S/P and is fully aware if his deception and intent or not is not the issue- and since we cannot truly get inside someone else’s head, the possibility exists that they don’t know what they are and that they are not in that moment the part they are playing. I think his point is in the internal core mindset or way of being which in the N/S/P is exploitive, manipulative and focused only on getting what they want no matter what- the reality of the harm to another does not compute or matter (others are simply objects for their use) except of course in so much as it give the pathological pleasure in the hunt and destruction and winning.
so whether someone is abrasive or not, or likable or not, or whatever at first glance is not a good indicator of whether or not they are a psychopath- though people may make that mistake- which I think often works in favor of the psychopath- my P is outwardly much more pleasant and soft-spoken and “nicer” and less abrasive than I am- he plays the part and plays to the crowd very well and very convincingly and in doing so can make me appear to be the crazy one or the P. So it takes really paying attention and looking for the cracks to see it- also since I am the injured party and in pain I present as agitated, anxious, angry, vengeful- “out to win” because I am (metaphorically)screaming in agony- while he, being detached and having already “won” he can appear calm and as the poor long suffering injured party at the hands of this awful crazy woman (me)- So, it often takes time and the willingness to look beneath the surface for someone to see the truth.
there is more I want to respond to i this but I need to try to go to sleep…maybe tomorrow….
Maybe tomorrow I will look for my original response to Mike’s question and see if it is coherent enough to be worth posting it.
Mike,
one last thing before I sign off for the night…I would like to hear more of your personal story if you would be willing to share it….I get glimpses of imagining what some of your experience that brought you here might be….I hear in your words some experience of “secondary wounding” from being not believed, or misunderstood, and misjudged, in your trying to deal with and express your own personal encounter with a pathological–I don’t want to assume anything but, that is what I am picking up- again it might be a projection from my own experience in my recognizing what you seem to be struggling with.
[philomela] “I think his point is in the internal core mindset or way of being which in the N/S/P is exploitive, manipulative and focused only on getting what they want no matter what- the reality of the harm to another does not compute or matter (others are simply objects for their use) except of course in so much as it give the pathological pleasure in the hunt and destruction and winning.”
Philomela, if this is the case, Steve’s article at the top seems to only create an additional layer of understanding to increase the work for people to sort out what’s what.
In his writing rules floating around online, Elmore Leonard commented on how Steinbeck would title chapters names like “Hooptedoodle” and “Hooptedoodle II” to indicate wordy chapters that had a lower structural priority to understanding the story.
Your observation seems to keep the “what do you mean by such-and-such-baffling-statement” question the independent vetting standard, and Steve’s article the dependent standard. This ranking has been absent from this thread so far. and it satisfies my curiosity.
[philomela] “I would like to hear more of your personal story…”
Whatever posts have been purged, the tumult started with reactions to my first posts you HAVE read that you found benign. Part of my story is that I don’t feel even this site is safe for me to share more without more of the same.
Mike,
Certainly only do or share what feels safe and comfortable for you. I do understand feeling unsafe to share more.. though it is unfortunately a bit of a catch-22 in that without being able to trust enough to share openly it is hard for others to understand and help (and also hard for others to trust you as well)- for me it was the P’s vagueness and my not continuing to pursue answers in respect for his “fear” of sharing that the P used to keep me from asking or pursuing the questions and doubts I had – but at the same time it is true that sharing openly also increases the vulnerability to harm…… So I don’t know the answer to this- just more of the same questions ……
When is the reluctance to share true self care and when is it manipulation?….a similar question to the one posed in Steve’s article….How do you know what something really is when they look the same on the surface? – How does someone know which it is- what is real and what is illusion or manipulation? I struggle with this daily.
I used to assume the best and go with trusting- now I go with fear and mistrust and hold back and wait and see and watch for the alarm bells in myself-but it is unnatural to me not to trust and hard for me to act with mistrust- again I think that is related to empathy-I hurt when I feel misunderstood and mistrusted and unfairly judged or accused or blamed- for me it is a deep feeling of being unseen and unknown.
I don’t like being afraid and suspicious and second guessing all my interactions. But, It was my openness and trust (and trustworthiness) in sharing who I am and my vulnerabilities that got turned back on me by the P. So now I feel “unsafe” in sharing most of the time these days-not so much here but in general-
Perhaps for me the worst part of what happened to me is that pervasive internal feeling of fear and confusion and feeling silenced that I live with- the P used twisted everything I said or did and used it as a weapon to harm me and made me even mistrust myself, and he used others so skillfully to reinforce that harm and the fear and self-doubt I now feel.
I often spend hours trying to write my thoughts fearing that what I say will be misunderstood, twisted etc.. I live in a kind of fear of my own vulnerability and fragility and that I cannot withstand any more blows- and it silences me in fear. I didn’t know- I believed the illusion that was he P- so how does anyone know whether I am really who I present myself as?….how do I know that anyone is who they present themselves to be…..? I struggle with the feeling that my own words in trying to to reach out for help will be used to hurt me more and are what make me unsafe- I cannot trust my own judgment or my own perceptions anymore and I am afraid to trust anyone else as well. I am struggling not to just retreat and hide out in fear. I find myself paralyzed by this fear-silenced in terror.
As for the rest of what you wrote about Steve’s article, I am not sure I understand what you are saying- Would you mind trying again in a different way?
I really want to understand what you said because I think we are both trying to understand the same issue – I am really struggling with this issue of how to “sort out what’s what” –
I do think that Steve’s article gives some insight into that for me- I think his point is that at some point in judging who is safe or not, that perhaps the intent or reasons behind someone’s actions (or even what they believe about themselves) may only matter in terms of understanding why or how they do what they do, but does not make as much difference in terms of deciding whether someone is safe to be around….If someone’s actions prove repeatedly to be exploitative, misleading, deceptive or crazy making, or harmful in their results, and are repeatedly without regard for the feelings, well-being or rights or safety of others and there is no reciprocity of care in action or in really trying to clarify things and repair damage done- then they are not safe to be around-it doesn’t really matter at that point (in its effect on others and whether one is safe around them) why they do it or whether they are a P/N/S or just a screwed up normal neurotic-
I stayed with my P because I kept believing his words that he was “really trying” until I finally began to look carefully at his actions and patterns and understood that the harm he was doing was still harm, and that even if he believed he was “really trying” to fix it his actions did not reflect that or that there was any real care for what he was doing to me as long as he felt OK- that was his standard- whether I was OK didn’t figure into it- so he wasn’t fixing “it” he was simply avoiding discomfort or consequences for himself- he just kept repeating the harm and the cycle….whether he is a P, or not a P, he is still toxic and harmful to me and anyone else who trusted him- his behavior and actions is still exploitative and he shows no real concern compassion or remorse for the harm he caused to others- the only concern he shows is for himself and his own desires, wants and needs- his highest value is his own comfort….He felt that because “he was working on himself” and “gaining insight”, all the harmful effects of his behavior on others should simply be excused without his needing to do anything to make amends or repair the damage. that is pseudo-insightfulness…insightfulness only for one’s own gain- to get better at the con.
Philomena:
Well said!
Crazy making…..through projection, mirroring, word twist, smokescreening, love bombing……never answering the direct questions and so on and so on ans soooooo on.
“for me it was the P’s vagueness and my not continuing to pursue answers”
So true……I always say….if you suspect someone’s motives or behaviors….ASK THE “NEXT” question….and S’s have a knack for ‘shutting’ peeps down.
Spath speak is NOT something society is accostomed to digging deep into. We are taught over time to ‘assume’ the words for interpretive face value…..it’s the portrayal.
The S i was divorcing….stated in court….”My car is NOT running”.
He portrayed that his car had mechanical problems….by this statement.
He assumed the judge would order me to let him have my ‘running’ car.
Well…..what he really meant was…..she has a better car, I trashed mine, it’s falling apart and I WANT YOU JUDGE, to award me her car…..His wasn’t ‘running’ because the KEYS weren’t IN the ignition.
I pointed out tothe judge the spath speak….and stated, in that case, by his definition….MY CAR ISN”T RUNNING EITHER!
The judge ‘got it’. And approached from a differetn angle…..
asking him about his children and how many are driving….and then pointed out that they need a RELIABLE….RUNNING car to maintain their necessities of life….to get to and fro….and since their mother, as primary car giver to all children, needs a RUNNING automobile to provide for their safety and necessities….she shall keep the new car.
It was a Backatcha from the judge….
BUT society would assume his car was ‘in the shop’ or he was ‘without’ wheels…..he manipulated words to gain ‘sympathy’ or attempt to exploit others.
This is what they do…….
Just like the S shouting from the rooftops….I support my children.
Well, um yes…..but does $300 dollars support several teenagers?
And does he tell peeps that the $300 was determined based on his lying to all, saying he doesn’t work?
Is $300 fair or adequate?
How many of the people he declares his ‘taking car of his kids’ statements to….ask him….HOW MUCH IS YOUR CHILD SUPPORT? HOW WAS IT DETERMINED?
ASK THE NEXT QUESTION? Very few if any…..we are schooled to ‘shut up’…..groomed to ‘trust’ and no need to ask THE NEXT QUESTION.
It’s difficult to interact with a person with vague and twisted responses…..
I have a certain, reasonable expectation of communication from the people I interact with.
Otherwise…..what’s the point?
Good post! Bravo!
“for me it was the P’s vagueness and my not continuing to pursue answers”
i did this very thing – he was so broken and wounded…blah blah blah.
but i do it with other people too. f*ck. i was deeply shcooled in it the 4 years prior to meeting the spath as i was taking care of my my with AD
was always ever so careful to make the easiest environment for her…which means go with the delusions, and unless someones physical health is at risk, don’t push or point out that no, in fact, no one has stolen the colander (which is probably in the dryer. when she dies there will be 20 tubes of lipstick recovered from the nooks and crannies of that house.)
i need to come to a place where i always ask the next question. always. it needs to be a bottom line.
For sure!
hi eb, want to ask how it went, but realize, you are on the other side of the continent – so the day is just beginning there.
best luck with it.
it’s the best serial going on lf! 😉
‘best’, ’cause you keep winning. 🙂