What a difficult question this is—exactly what defines the sociopath?
 Joseph Neuman Ph.D, psychopathy researcher, in an extensive interview (see link to this interview previously provided by Donna Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZgnCHweLM) addresses this and other questions about psychopaths.
Neuman’s research, if I understand him correctly (and I did not find him to be particularly clear in his explanations) yields a picture of the psychopath, surprisingly, not as primarily emotionally defective, but rather as emotionally defective secondary to certain forms of attentional problems.
Neuman makes some interesting and, to my mind, somewhat puzzling observations. For instance, and consistent with his basic premise, he actually suggests that psychopaths may be more inclined to genuinely assist someone they perceive to be in need than non-psychopaths. Did I hear that correctly? I think so.
Neuman also suggests that the psychopath’s capacity for this kind of humane response is unfortunately, or effectively, nullified (in others’ eyes) by his more antisocial, knucklehead behaviors. Did I hear this correctly, too? I think I did.
Neuman’s basic premise—again, if I understand him correctly—is that psychopaths aren’t so much fundamentally defective emotionally as much as their emotional capacities which, alas, may be much more normal than otherwise appreciated, are essentially obscured, effectively immobilized, by their over-attention, their over-focus on their particular, momentary interest(s).
So, to be clear, if I’m understanding Neuman, he’s suggesting that psychopaths (at least some, if not many) may indeed have normal emotions, perhaps even a normal range of emotions; the problem is that they don’t “attend” to their emotions because they aren’t “cueing” to the signals that should steer them to recognize, and be better regulated, by their emotions.
Neuman suggests that when psychopaths can be directed to focus on these cues and signals, his research shows that they can and do access a range of more normal emotions. This should and, Neuman says, does result in their coming under the better, and more appropriate, stewardship of their emotions (my italics, not his).
Now on one hand, Neuman says he’s not denying that an emotional deficit lies at the core of psychopathy. Yet it seems to me that this is exactly what he’s questioning! What he is saying in the interview, it seems to me, again and again, is that, at the heart of psychopathy is less an emotional deficit than a kind of attentional deficit, a signal-attuning deficit, the consequence of which is to detach the psychopath from connection to his underlying capacity to feel, and be better regulated in his behavior, by his emotions.
Now perhaps I’ve badly misinterpreted what I heard Neuman saying. I will leave that to other LoveFraud readers to weigh in.
Also, consistent with what I hear him saying throughout the interview, Neuman takes the rather radical stance that once a psychopath, not necessarily always, hopelessly, permanently a psychopath.
He suggests, rather, that if interventions can be developed that, for instance, can help psychopaths more effectively attune to the signals that will steer their attention to their healthier emotions, well then”¦NASA, we may have arrived at something of a cure, or palliative, for psychopathy.
He envisions interventions, if I understand him properly, that would effectively liberate the humanity within the psychopath, which is obscured, if not immobilized, by his attentional problems.
Because again, he is not saying that psychopaths necessarily lack emotions, or even a range of normal emotions; remember, he goes so far as to say that some psychopaths, including those with whom he’s worked, have shown evidence of an even greater (and genuine!) responsiveness to those in need than non-psychopaths. The problem, he stresses, is that psychopaths, by virtue of their overfocus on present, reward-driven interests, are basically disconnected from their emotions. At least this is what I understand him to be saying.
Neuman makes another interesting observation. Citing Hervey Cleckley, MD, he suggests that the psychopath may have an even weaker drive to acquire what he wants than the normal individual. The problem, he says, is that their “restraints” are even weaker than their “urges.” He describes this as a case of their “weaker urges breaking through even weaker restraints.”
Neuman also asserts that you can’t define psychopathy by behaviors and actions, including, he says, actions like “defrauding” people. I understand his general point—the idea that psychopathy’s essence may be more a reflection of a mentality than specific actions.
However, a pattern of certain actions, especially exploitive actions, can reflect, can reveal, the mind—and the disorder—behind it.
As I understand Neuman, let us say we have someone who is in the process of perpetrating a cold-blooded armed robbery—and not, say, the first he’s perpetrated. He’s prepared to bind, blindfold and shoot all potential witnesses to the crime. This way he can take what he came for and not get fingered, identified, in the act. Let us say he has done this before, remorselessly.
Neuman seems to suggest that, horrible as this act would be, it’s not necessarily indicative of a psychopath. Maybe he’s right.
But let’s say this individual is a Hare-diagnosed psychopath. Neuman also seems to be proposing the idea that the killer’s primary issue isn’t necessarily the absence, somewhere, of appropriate and potentially self-regulating emotion; rather, he’s so overfocused on taking care of the business at hand—robbing, and removing witnesses to the robbery—that he’s unable to attune to the kinds of signals that would lead him to recognize, and fall under the prosocial influence, of his more normal, humane emotions.
So that, if somehow, in the course of the perpetrating of his crime, you could somehow cue him to the signals that might lead him to recognize his more “humane” emotions, you might, theoretically, be able to short-circuit the robbery and coldblooded murdering of the witnesses!
Really? That’s an interesting concept, but it’s not one that strikes me as necessarily plausible. In general, as I listened to Neuman, I found that he depicted the psychopath specifically, and psychopathy in general, in terms that seemed to me much too benign; as if the psychopath, in Neuman’s view and based on his research, isn’t necessarily lacking in humanity as much as he’s lacking certain qualities that would enable his humanity to express itself in more visible, self-regulating, prosocial ways?
What was your take on the interview?
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2010 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is strictly for convenience’s sake and not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors and attitudes discussed.)
Â
Funny you mention that sistersister, but I used to get the impression that the only thing my sociopath female ex ever knew about sex was from watching porn and emulating it. There was nothing naturally poetic or tender in her “love” making. Even after several years I still felt like I was having sex with a prostitute. I see now that is precisely what was happening.
Interesting comments, and Wini, that’s so tough to have gone through that, both at work and at home.
Frank Lee Speaking (and frankly speaking), I guess my sex life hasn’t been that great, and I keep hearing that it’s my fault for not being more porn-y because I often won’t go there without feeling some emotional connection to opening up. I think people who relate in that easy, commercialized, dime-novel/dirty-magazine way are extremely common nowadays, indeed considered normal. Just going through the motions, and then they want to hear how great their moves were. Great moves! But a completely forgettable experience.
I just read the whole post, and Frank Lee Speaking’s response, and I have some responses in agreement with them. Catch ya later.
Also . . . Wini, I don’t think Susan is a “life devoid of emotions.” On the contrary, as this article points out, there are some emotions there, and others not there at all.
I saw this. I think it has everything to do with the range of the disorder and will vary by case.
But isn’t that like trying to test how deadly each rattlesnake’s poison is?
The insult had feelings and could be or at least could act very appropriately- Just an act and not real in the moment? I think there was more to it than that.
But the inability to control his knuckleheadedness evolved in a loss of contact with reality to the point where I think if he said it, he believe it to be true.
After that, I think he would become very dangerous because he could spin an alternative reality around anything he said or did.
SisterSister, I had no idea I was going through both at the same time. I was absolutely devastated over the situation with my bosses and had NO CLUE what-so-ever my EX was one too until 2 years after I retired, and of course, by then, it was too late. If I knew he was “one”, I definitely would have collapsed over all this knowledge and horror at the same time. My believing that my EX was for real and was standing by my side through all of this helped me stand up to what my bosses threw my way.
God does work in mysterious ways.
Peace.
Redwald and Steve,
To continue the analogy at the party…I think, though, that if the P moves into the other room, or the music volume is turned up, or people move closer, etc….the P still can’t pick up the sounds and sights any better than before. The volume can be cranked up full force and they won’t hear it. Or they will hear the music, be able to recite the words, but still don’t “get it”.
My P once said he was going to have a heart to heart with his son to tell him he was sorry he wasn’t there for him, “you know, like at his softball games, I was never there.” I later asked how the talk went. He said “fantastic”. I asked “what did he say in response?” He said “Oh, he wasn’t there. ” When I expressed my confusion, saying how could you have a heart to heart with him if he wasn’t there, he said “Oh! The other kids were there, they will tell him.” I started laughing and he was really puzzled about what was funny. NOR could he articulate to me what “not being there” for his son meant, other than using the same example over and over about the baseball game. This guy was valedictorian of his high school class (of course there was some cheating involved) and is a highly successful doctor, financially.
But he doesn’t “get it”. I can see him helping someone …perhaps. But I can guarantee it will be some action he saw in a movie or saw someone else do in that situation, because it is almost impossible for him to come up with an empathetic gesture on his own.
The emotions he feels and shows are very shallow. A flash of rage. A “oh…you will like this…it is sort of romantic”…before saying “I tried to breath your molecules where you were last week, when I went there after that.” His only romantic sexual move was copied almost verbatim from his favorite movie.
Envy he can certainly experience. But that description in some book of a psychopath going home after watching a mother see her child hurt in an accident, and mimicking her reactions in the mirror to try to feel what she was feeling….that rings so true for me.
The tests in the experiment are telling the psychopath…focus on these shapes. Being quite literal, because what else can they be, they have no problem naming the shapes. With the caps and colors test, they will ignore any pain to win. Nothing new there.
I think the Neuman’s explanation on the video is just not helpful. Esp. about psychopaths doing “good” things. Dig and you will find the power motive, the amusement factor, whatever behind it. Their world lens is “what is in this for me?” pure and simple. And like the autistic and some others, their emotional depth is shallow and that just doesn’t change. Oh sure, my P could say “I’m in love, you leave me breathless” but I can trace back and find where he picked up that wording and he has no problem telling you the next day that he thinks it would be best if he no longer talked to you.
SisterSister, I’ve witness them in emotional meltdowns. It was all about them, not any one or anything outside themselves.
But, then again … it’s ALL ABOUT THEM, THEM, THEM AND THEM.
Peace, Wini. I think it speaks to just how *confusing* this can be to the victims.
This article reinforced that for me by showing how complex the whole package can be. Even if, like pregnancy, there’s no such thing as “kind of” psychopathic — it’s absolute — people can be psychopathic in some ways and not in others.
Thanks again, Frank Lee Speaking, for pointing out how this can confuse us when we naturally try to see consistency in people. We might even think they’re doing those nice things as part of their manipulative plan — possible, maybe even likely, but not always proved.
And thanks also for observing that this inconsistency makes them more, not less, dangerous. We never see it coming, from such a “nice” person.
What I’m getting to here is that we’re being a little hard on ourselves when we accuse ourselves of being “in denial” about the psychopath. Part of this fake package may be real. We may love that part of this person, genuinely and passionately. It adds to our confusion.
I had a conversation this year with my sister’s ex-boyfriend, who recounted her very sensitive and perceptive response to someone’s acts. I can’t remember what that was, but I remember being moved, against all effort to resist, to say, “My sister is really perceptive sometimes.” And I don’t think it’s that fake sensitivity we’ve talked about elsewhere. I believe it was real. Am I then in denial about her being a psychopath? Only if I try to see that as the dominant pattern, overlooking her other, very real, abusive behaviors.
I’ve also noticed her out-of-control emotional response to some things that may seem minor to you and me. That’s not a person out of touch with every emotion. Just some.
This might explain “split personalities.” A psychopathic boyfriend I once had talked to me with two voices, each very authentic. It was scary.
We see each person exclusively as their dominant pattern. It would be a mistake to think that’s how they see themselves. My childhood “best friend” Susan, for instance, doesn’t seem to connect the dots between what she says about herself and what actually happened. She never even told a mutual friend of ours about our breakup 30 years ago. (I had fallen out of touch with this friend and learned this when we met at a reunion in 2006.)
In other words, and as someone else here has posted, this psychopath actually believes her own stories. If you’re not careful, you end up getting swept up into their fantasy world.
As for rehabilitation — We may “have to start by getting their cooperation and willingness to learn and change,” but isn’t it more likely that a person with some healthy parts might have that willingness? This says nothing of how successful any ensuing therapy would be, but it at least holds out hope that some psychopaths (not all) might at least see there’s a problem.
In sum, people are complex. Psychopaths are, too.
And if we are confused by that complexity, we should take it easier on ourselves. Not to say, take our time getting out, or second-guess the need to — but understand why it’s so hard. Like a house of mirrors, the funhouse kind with distortions in them.
Some of these mirrors shatter into a million pieces when you get up close to them.
DEar RedWald,
According to Dr. Kent Kiehl’s research in prisons right n ow, about 25% of the inmate population scores as a P at >30 points on the PCL-R, but the AVERAGE score of the others is 22, which is pretty disordered and antisocial, so they are not “normal” at all. I think the general population scores about 4-5 on the PCL-R.
It is interesting too that as our incarceration rate has gone UP AND UP in the last few years with some harsher sentences for more violent crimes (murder etc) the CRIME RATE HAS DROPPED significantly over the past few years. I wonder if there is a correlation there? More Ps and more people with high-P traits off the street =lower crime rate? That’s an interesting question for me.
We do need to keep in mind thought that there is a SCALE of psychopathic behavior from Very little P-traits/behavior up to the Full Monte Serial killer Hitler and everything in between.
I’m starting to get more into the “attention deficit” angle on this now.
Because with my sister, that is very, very evident. This is a person who withdraws into herself when talking to a group, spurting out addenda to what she just said long after someone has responded and the conversation has moved on. And then she looks up and says nobody is listening to her! From there, her remarks moves far afield, to other topics and rages.
I actually feel for her in her confusion. She’s truly hurt, thinks people have dissed her. She honestly missed that part where we responded to her.
She also had learning disabilities, in spite of coming out pretty high on at least one IQ test. We’re talkin’ ADD here. (By the way, Thomas Edison had ADD, was a total jerk to work with, loved playing jokes on other people, and yet found ways to work with his ADD rather than against it.)
Further, this attention problem has shown up in smaller ways in both my father and myself, so it could be genetic. (And, I might add, my father was conceived in rape and adopted out.)
Thanks to whoever said it was all about THEM, THEM, THEM. Because the one thing I don’t see described in the Neuman review is narcissism. Is narcissism perhaps an attention-deficit habit in which one’s attention is directed to the self and gets stuck there?
Separately, I have a comment on this:
“. . . if somehow, in the course of the perpetrating of his crime, you could somehow cue him to the signals that might lead him to recognize his more “humane” emotions, you might, theoretically, be able to short-circuit the robbery and coldblooded murdering of the witnesses!”
Theoretically. Not always possible to read these situations. But my former therapist told me he once advised a woman who worked as a booking clerk in a police station how to handle unruly perps. She simply talked to them as their mother would, at the age of about 3. So she said, “Freddie! I’m disappointed in you!” And Freddie calmed down. In fact, Freddie’s mother came in with her son later and thanked him for turning her son’s life around! (Probably a chance occurrence, dependent on timing and circumstances in this young man’s life, but significant.)
So there may be something that pushes a hot button in people that short-circuits their intentions. They forget what it was they were going to do. Oh yeah, I was going to rob a bank.
A friend of mine once said while we were on the phone that he was watching “Cops,” and some guy was beating a stick on a fence, naked. I said, “At what point do you look around and say, Hey! I’m beating a fence while naked! What kind of loser would do a thing like that?” He’s obviously not paying attention. Lost in some kind of trance, and trances can be broken.
It may be far more complicated to work a button-pushing distraction into a situation like that, but I think, yes, “theoretically,” it is possible.