All of us, at one time or another, will have a close, if not intimate, relationship with a sociopath. Some will break this relationship before it gets terribly destructive; others will not. They will find ways to deceive themselves about the true nature of the relationship so that it can persist.
We encounter numerous Bernie Madoff types in our lives. Some like Madoff take our money; some plunder our friendship; and still others eviscerate our heart. The victims of sociopaths are numerous and the stuff of good stories, but even more numerous are those who walked away, who avoided entrapment, and who are never written about. There is no 60 Minutes about the guys who saw right through Madoff and took a hike. Remember, only twenty-five people and organizations provided half of Madoff’s capital.
Normalcy does not make for a good story; the psychopathology of everyday life does. Similarly, there are many who cannot live with the equilibrium of every day existence. For them, life needs a step function or two, a qualitative change from time to time. And unlike the sociopath, they are incapable of moving to the edge and testing the boundaries of what they can get away with while being oblivious to the consequences; they live vicariously through the destructive sociopath who can do all that. This is the attraction. The sociopath provides the soundtrack for other people’s existence. Whether through the vicarious experience of watching the sociopath push life to limits that they could not imagine or periodically going along for the ride with him at the wheel, those who tie themselves to sociopaths find the narrative of their own existence in the relationship.
As a teenager, there is the one fearless friend who gets you to do the things you wouldn’t ordinarily do that ultimately get you in trouble. And if the trouble didn’t totally destroy you, years later it is the stuff you laugh about and tell your close friends. But, you might be oblivious to the fact that as an adult, you are repeating this behavior, just in a more subtle and less obvious way.
There are those that believe that they can be in a relationship with a sociopath and stay in control. Even some therapists will tell you that if you are going to be in such a relationship and can’t break it, then you must become like the sociopath. You must have an agenda for the relationship that you manipulate to your ends. You must see the relationship as an exploitive relationship and become the exploiter.
There is a major flaw in such advice. The sociopath neither loses sight of his ultimate goal nor of his self-interest. Ordinary people do. They succumb to the bonds of friendship or intimacy. Ordinary people have feelings. Sociopaths don’t. Ordinary people establish feelings of altruism, which the sociopaths do not, and which he ultimately manipulates when others are least ready to resist.
Keep an eye on Casey Anthony. She will continue to be in the news, and she will thrive on her notoriety.
Casey is clearly a mess, but her mother is no less a sociopath than Casey.
I’ve always though, actually, that Cindy Anthony is the greater monster of the two.
The father is a classic enabler, a classic co-dependant. He’s the only one I’m able to scrape together an ounce of sympathy for.
Dr. Keith Ablow says Casey doesn’t even come close to testing out as a sociopath. His theory is that she is an incest victim. Which would make George the sociopath and Cindy the enabler.
I read this article fully expecting that in would eventually get around to mentioning obama, or some other hated figure on “the left”. But no. I do believe this might well be the first-ever discussion of sociopaths on this site that wasn’t a transparent excuse to bash a democratic politician. Well done!
Now … any bets on how long it’ll take the commenters to finish the job?
I think you just greatly accelerated the process. Nice use of scare quotes though!
It’s the observer’s paradox. I blame heisenberg.
Observer effect is not Heisenberg uncertainty. A common error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)#Quantum_mechanics
One does not need an ‘excuse’ to excoriate figures on the left. The contemptible should be shown contempt until they are shamed into silence. Yes, I know, fat chance of that happening……
APPLAUSE!
Actually, sociopaths can be found in politics across the entire spectrum, although they tend to congregate at the extreme ends (left and right statist).
By nature, sociopaths seek power over others, preferably with as little chance of blowback as possible. In effect, they seek the ability to cause harm while being protected from the natural and/or legal consequences of doing so. (Legal consequences= jail time; natural consequences= getting punched in the nose, etc.)
Politics is a field in which the entire structure is designed to insulate the actors therein from the consequences of their errors. Theoretically, if the actor screws up spectacularly enough, they can be defeated in the next election. In reality, this rarely happens, mainly due to the power of incumbency to perpetuate itself. (Doubly so if the actor in question espouses “politically correct” positions; there are endless numbers of people willing to go to bat for him in that case.)
Now, consider the results if the actor in question is looking for a profession in which he can manipulate people to his own advantage, and derive pleasure from hurting them in the process.
For the sociopath, politics is a perfect fit.
As a bonus, he can often count on adulation from whatever segment of society hates his victims as much as he does. Since most sociopaths are also either egomaniacs, narcissists, or both, this is an additional attraction.
BTW, I noticed this corollary when taking Abnormal Psychology in college. My professor said that everybody knew it, but it was one of those things that polite people don’t talk about. At least, not in the faculty lounge; which itself is another common gathering place of sociopaths.
clear ether
eon
Ah, comorbidity – gotta love it (sigh)
well said
I don’t think sociopaths congregate on the extremes. In my experience they figure out what you think and go one further, to get your attention.
By nature, sociopaths seek power over others, preferably with as little chance of blowback as possible.
As an example of such I give you Techno, beginning with comment 2 above.
No party has the monopoly on sociopaths. They’ll go wherever there’s power to be accumulated, money to rake in, Congressional pages to molest, etc.
obama is more of a psychopath in low gear.
We haven’t yet seen what he is capable if he ever gets all the power he craves.
If he’s megalomaniac who doesn’t turn violently on people who resist him when he gets the power, that would be evidence that it’s possible.
3… 2 … 1 … Bill Clinton
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Chris Mathews, Soros, Rachel Madcow etc. —all are sociopaths. There: Are you happy now?
Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, Mayors Villaragosa and Newsom- it’s definitely bipartisan.
Heh. I was waiting for Newt Gingrich to come up.
Well now that YOU have raised the subject, I suppose Obama could indeed be considered a sociapath. Unfortunately the leading repub candidate, Newt, could be one as well.
This seems a particularly innacurate article. Sociopathy is wide range condition, only equivalent to psycopathy at the extreme.
James–I can only presume you’re reading from an old DSM. Kindly check DSM V and ICD-10. You are,regrettably, way off the mark.
Does DSM-5 (it’s not going to be “DSM V,” is it?) discuss sociopathy as such? I thought that sociopathy was going to be reapproximated as antisocial personality disorder or however that multi-axis underdeterminate hoodoo turns out. And is one really supposed to follow DSM-5 pre-publication? At the very least, is concern-snark-from-authority appropriate at this point? Especially in the comments to a post that leans quite heavily on a pre-DSM-5 term?
Yes, is being referred to as DSM-V. Socoiopathy and psychopathy are currently subsumed under ASPD, but are also used as subcategories of ASPD. Be that as it may, even in the older versions, James is wrong that sociopathy and psychopathy only merge at the extremes. Sociopathy and psychopathy are still commonly used –despite what the so called authoritative professional associations say (and in the case of DSM-V, their working committee)–and the terms are often used interchangeably. It is psychopathy that fell into limited use first. Be that as it may, this, as you suggest, appears to be a digression into how many angels can dance on the head of a diagnosis. Clearly, nearly everyone knows the reference. I regret opening up this discussion, but then James’ statement was so wrong and so lacking in qualification. Let’s go back to the notion that the spoken language is basic–even among mental health professionals.
Not so James. There is clinically no difference between sociopathy and psychopathy. Sociopathy is merely a civilian term to describe the more high functioning psychopath. They are one in the same. No conscience, no remorse. The article is excellent with one exception. All sociopaths. … All … No matter how high functioning are dangerous. The old APA joke is true … 3% of the sociopaths will kill you when they are through with you. The other 97% watch you kill youself.
There were stories of people literally clamoring to invest with Madoff, that Bernie managed to set up some aura where getting in/being allowed in to invest came to be seen as some kind of social high, some coup.
Even in prison, he is said to have cultivated an admiring crowd of fellow prisoners, people who (he has bragged) bring him “wraps” (food) and wait on him.
Yeah (here it comes) Obama-mania has some of the same overtones.
I got snared in one of those sexual relationships with a *-path. I placed a ‘*’ in front of ‘path’ because I suspect she was a psychopath, not a sociopath. The facts that she was more calculating than impulsive and that she had been a well-educated professional woman when I met her speak more to a psychopathic personality than a sociopathic one.
After dating for only a couple of months, she stopped seeing me when she met another guy she wanted to pursue. When he moved away a few months later, she called me up wanting to return to how we were. I wasn’t interested and that’s when the ‘fun’ began.
She trashed my house and yard but didn’t break in, I got a Personal Protection Order, she retreated for a while. But a couple of months later, and all within the space of three days, she trashed my house again (I was at work), this time breaking in and causing nearly $35k damage, she killed my cat, she then went on to attack the woman I was now seeing, broke into my daughter’s college dorm room and slashed her clothes, spray painted obscenities on my other daughter’s car.
After her spree, she was apprehended, placed in a psych hospital involuntarily and eventually sentenced to jail. After she got out, she picked up and carried right on with attacks only this time aimed only at me. She finally swallowed a .38 round, self-inflicted in my front yard.
Never again.
Never again?
Would it be possible to meet someone like that twice?
There are a lot of them out there so, yes, the chances of meeting someone like that again are pretty good.
However, those of us who have had people like that in our lives before tend to put “not crazy” and “no drama” real high on our list.
Wow.
That’s crappy.
Yeah, it shows combox hijacking for the small potatoes it is.
Bullshit!
Fascinating, but total bullshit.
A “science” in which someone like Andrei Sakharov is well or ill depends on which politico-economic system the analyst lives under (not to mention the rest of loads of incongruities) is so distant from objectivity that it can only be written off as total bullshit. We support it because it is convenient, not because it is truth.
YKW,
What the heck are you talking about? I am so confused.
The clear cut persecution of and attempts to discredit Sakharov by the Soviets does not in any manner shape or form relate to whether or not “sociopath” is a credible description of a given individual.
I’ve known manipulators without conscience or remorse. Someday, such “traits” may even be detectable on a brain scan.
As for Sakharov, the Russians have always tried to discredit the mental integrity of the people they target.
The Soviets did the same thing to Solzhenitsyn when they tossed him in the gulag and to Shcharansky who eventually escaped to Israel where he lives today.
Currently, those former Soviets like Putin (“you can take the boy out of the KGB but you can’t take the KGB out of the boy”) just shoot or poison people who speak truthfully about them or willy nilly imprison individuals like the oil oligarch Khodorkovsky.
So you’re saying “Crazy is relative?” One society’s sociopath is another society’s hero?
Well, this is our society and we say sociopaths are bad. Deal with it.
Very nicely said.
That’s like using Lysenkosim to discredit genetics.
If you have a beef with psychology, that’s fine- it’s got a lot of flaws and many of the professional practitioners don’t pass the smell test. But, “this must be BS because the Soviets manipulated it”, is a line of reasoning that doesn’t leave a lot of science or even art left over.
@Abraham: yep. The problem is that it’s easy to recognize these “falling knives” …. the second time around.
I watched, with bemused detachment, one of these female operators in action. She was a co-worker and from the moment she was hired she created a magnetic disturbance among the males in the office. She set her sights on our sales manager who was also her boss (and was in the process of bringing his girlfriend from another state). She blatantly seduced him at the office Christmas party and it was something to behold. He dumped her when his girlfriend arrived in town, showing himself to be as clear-eyed and opportunistic as she was. Undeterred, she continued down the list of eligible and ineligible male co-workers, using them to remind the manager what he had given up. She even, eventually, befriended the clueless girlfriend (who was much too nice a person for either of them). Her techniques were obvious to us women, but it was fascinating to see how the bollixed but willing men responded. She turned the office dynamics into a sociology experiment that rivaled Margaret Mead’s Pacific Islander observations.
Sociopaths in government aren’t limited to office holders. All levels of government, including the ‘rank and file’, are packed with payrollers, union ‘activists’, loafers, hustlers, bums and outright thieves who have conned their way into our pockets. They will lie, cheat, spin and ultimately use violence if they feel it is necessary.
If they think they are losing, it will be necessary.
Social justice is sociopathic thinking. Rod Blagojevic started out as an assistant state’s attorney. he married the daughter of a powerful, sleazy Chicago alderman, and used that to go as far as it would take him. SEIU loved him. They were like/this.
As recent and current efforts prove (one thinks immediately of Wisconsin), they won’t give up what they’ve got without a fight.
Good article overall—excellent content, but WHY is this article focused on women? Yes, there are certainly women who are sociopaths, no doubt about it, but it is equally as common in men. The article seems to go off the rails at some point and becomes about women in particular. I would have appreciated a more balanced view, though as I say, the content and message is good in general.
Answer: Because girls deserve equal time, that’s why.
Why? Because far more women are attracted to sociopaths than men are.
Dexter is a chick show, as is most of the semi-sociopathic bad guys the women love: Homeland (oh Damien Lewis, call your agent!) or Rescue Me or Sopranos or Boardwalk Empire or Breaking Bad or any of those chick shows.
Because women dig jerks, and dig sociopaths even more. Joran Van Der Sloot has tons of love letters, and one woman flew down to Peru to be with him. AFTER he pled guilty to his latest murder.
By contrast, sociopaths don’t generally do well in politics and sports and other male dominated professions such as the military. There is too much go along get along, back scratching, patronage, and loyalty demanded. Consider football coaches. Hired to be fired, their main attributes are a big rolodex and loyalty, being able to bring in talented assistants very quickly. Since they do the actual coaching. Sociopaths don’t function well in a patronage heavy environment — they have to produce, patronage if nothing else. This has nothing to do with morality, or being “a good guy” or stopping little boys from being molested in the shower. So you can retain a talented coordinator who gets you wins. This is about sociopathy. Most men don’t like them, and won’t tolerate them long in a male dominated environment. Where you have to produce and deliver patronage.
Sociopaths, as long as they don’t cut up body parts, can be sexy for women. The bad boy is a cliche because he’s true. The hottest, and often most intelligent women, often fall for a low level sociopath drug dealer. Or the like. While men will fall occasionally for a female sociopath, mostly they will trade off sexiness for reliability, faithfulness, and amiability. Mostly. And mostly women don’t make that same tradeoff any more. Mostly.
Asked. And answered.
And the studies that show that those men who test as having the most psychopathic-prone personalities are the ones who frequently do best in corporate culture? I’m sorry, but I can’t really think of a better example than a male dominated field than that. Further, if I may ask… “Have you ever actually served in the military?” I have been a dependent child of a military member, served myself, and married someone in the military, and your statement that “People like that don’t do well in the military” is patently untrue, based on personal experience that came from living that life.
The whole premise of your argument that “men don’t stand for that kind of thing” isn’t born out by the weight of real-world evidence, in my own opinion.
That isn’t to say that quite a bit of the rest of what you said, about women wanting a bad boy isn’t true. But I believe the deeper issue is that a majority of women have been raised to believe that without drama of some sort in their lives, they aren’t really living, and that passion and emotionality (positive or negative) is the only true measure of love.
Abe, excellent piece as always. Female sociopaths are a horror; not least of which is because of their protection by the PC squad due to the fact of their gender. This protection emboldens a female sociopath to do great harm to her prey and nowhere is that kind of destructive behavior more evident than in those women who cry ‘rape’. Now, before the feminists start to purple their faces with screams, I identify myself as a woman – and one who likes being female. So this isn’t self-hatred or anything at work here, just the truth. As a former legal secretary, I can assure you that the rape laws have turned female victims into victimizers, ones who use the protection of rape laws to destroy innocent lives willy nilly. Proof of this are two of the more infamous ‘rape’ scandals which turned out to be nothing of the kind: i.e., the black prostitute in Durham, SC who accused innocent white Duke lacrosse players of rape and the hotel maid in New York who accused Strauss-Kahn of the same. The horror of these accusations was that the accused were stripped of any protection and made to suffer H*ll whereas the accuser was layered with protection without so much as a harsh word spoken to her. Worse, despite being unmasked as a liar, she was allowed to walk away with no punishment. Such protection, such ability to destroy without suffering the repercussions of your destruction is catnip to a female sociopath. She can not help but take advantage of it.l
Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that I do NOT mean to imply all rape accusations are false; I’m simply pointing out that when a law is so blatantly prejudiced against the accused and so unfairly weighted in its protection of the accuser, abuse is inevitable. And, like I said, no one feeds on that kind of abuse more than a female sociopath.
As noted in another commentary, the identification of such manipulative women as “”Psychopaths” is generally wrong, from a clinical perspective, although highly manipulative behaviour is one of the most prominent core characteristics of psychopathy but it is a personality characteristic shared by people with other disorders and, of course, with “normals”.
I did wish to add to your commentary, however. I, a former practicing psychologist, found that the incidences of false accusations of rape, sexual exploitation and other “inconvenient” concerns, were especially prominent in custody and access cases. I’m sure you found the selfsame behaviour true regarding your own professional experiences as a legal secretary. Many psychologists, even those considered to be experts in the field, have dropped out of involving themselves in such professional areas due to the extreme stress, manipulative and deceptive behaviour on the part of the parents, the disruption to their own professional lives and to the interminable threats to their own professional integrity. In my own case, in a career of completing such reports over a matter of a decade or more, I found that women were, by far, the most extreme and the most deliberate in causing havoc in order to hurt their spouse and rob their own children of his parenting input. Even when their deceptions were discovered or when their illegal behaviour was established, the Courts rarely admonished them adequately in spite of the current laws in the USA and Canada that equal weight be given to fathers’ rights as well as mothers’. Incidentally, to gain a view about how far in arrears other parts of the world are, one only needs looking at Israel where the presumption of maternal rights outweighs those of the fathers’. At this point, Israeli feminists are still protecting their dominance while the principle of this law is being challenged!
Sorry, Abe, your description of a female sociopath (this term is an alternative for “psychopath”) is, in essence, from a clinical point of view, incorrect. You have actually confused women with an Hysterical or Borderline Personality Disorder. Such women, as you assert, can be fetching (to men) and other women are more nearly able to define their “game” whereas true psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to detect, even by experts. They are characterized by a core set of personality characteristics (see the current leading expert, Robert Hare) including an inability to empathize with others (as you indicated) and a lack of remorse. In fact, you may also be confusing the diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder with psychopathy. All of the above cited personality disorders confuse the people they come in contact with and normally have detrimental effects but outright psychopathic behaviour, as defined by Robert Hare, is far more prominent in men than women. I hope these clarifications help.
The interesting thing is when you identify such a woman – the kind that think all men are hers to take from other women.
It is amusing to twist her pathology around on her by emphasizing how much you are devoted to your partner, and yet still engage her in intellectual and flirtatious conversation. The frustration eats away at their psyche.
And you’re guaranteed to get the wildest lay of your life.
So I’m told….
Sounds like Newt Gingrich.
Says the idiot who voted for Obamao.
As mentioned, the inability to feel remorse is a defining characteristic of the clinical definition.
Perhaps you have some inside information that causes you to lump Newt into a special category of sociopath that most other politicians are excluded from.
Most politicians have some degree of psychopathy, be it neurosis or psychosis. But then, as my clinical professor used to say, 5% of the population are psychopaths, and the remaining 95% are neurotic.
From my clinical training and professional observations of thousands of managers and business leaders, those who strive to climb to the heights of their profession have some form of neurosis. They use their accomplishments as a compensation for their feelings of inferiority, and as proof that they measure up to their internal benchmark. For some, this drive is insatiable, for others, they learn about it and mature out of it, to some degree or another.
In 2000, when Bush was running for the Presidency, it was obvious to me that he was running out of a neurotic need to measure up to (and exceed) his father’s success. His motivations seemed to be much less about any real passion about leading the country, and all about sating a dark hole of inferiority. When 9/11 occurred, his neurosis was transformed into a need to become the protector, not only of the US, but of the world.
Like Bush, Romney’s neurosis of inferiority is forcing him to surpass his Dad’s success. The Presidency is a benchmark for accomplishment, and a means to prove his technocratic mettle.
Santorum is similar in this regard, though he is less neurotic, thus less driven.
Gingrich plays as the outsider, needing to prove others wrong. He is the kid that bnever got respect in high school, the nerd who the jocks picked on. Noew he can use his intellect to defeat the “cool kids”, in this case, the Liberal Media. He is best as an insurgent acting against the mighty Leviathan of adversity. If he pictures that adversity as fighting against Big Government (Statism), Big Media, and cultural decline due to Liberalism (socialism + anarchism), then he’s got a chance to connect to the American zeitgeist.
Is Obama a sociopath. Yes, in matters of degree.
Obama, lacking a real father figure, or any stable parental figure, is a psychological mess. He relies on strong others to give him backbone and to show him the way to think: Rev. Wright, Michelle, Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary, Soros (behind the scenes). Because his mother abandoned him, and he ended up in the hands of the Marxist and probable pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, he is scared of men, though craves their power. (Notice that he appointed two women to the Supreme Court, and picked a non-threatening dumb*ss for VP). He talks about working to get jobs (how many times has he promised it was his #1 Priority?!)
He is a little boy scared to take chances, and whose critical thinking has been warped by radical thinkers and Marxists. He can parrot the party line, but when it comes time to make decisions, he wants others to do it: thus, 37 czars. He is narcissistic in that he’s been coddled all his life, and thus feels entitled always getting his way. But he doesn’t have the intellectual heft to think for himself, nor the courage to make a decision. That’s why he votes “present.” He is an empty suit that has power, and the power of his advisers is corrupting him. He is petulant when he does not get his way, and as he will find when the Senate becomes Republican, he will seek to circumvent them. If re-elected, impeachment is inevitable.
There is so much more regarding his psychological state, one could write volumes.
If re-elected, a Democratic Senate with perhaps 65 seats is inevitable along with Pelosi in the Speakership. So no I would not count on Obama being impeached any time soon, much less convicted. Newt is that poisonous to the general electorate. Unfair but there you are.
Agreed with the rest of the analysis of Obama’s character, save two issues. Credible allegations of continuing drug use have emerged (Obama himself admits to using cocaine, marijuana, and other stuff). And there are allegations of long-time gay relationships, there is a curious absence of women in Obama’s romantic life. Not a single girlfriend other than Michelle. Weird. The press had no trouble finding McCain’s old women. There were plenty of them. Heck David McCullough found old Truman girlfriends. Decades after he died. Obama is a very strange man.
I you concede that Newt and Obama are both psychopaths, I will agree with you.
My father is a full-blown sociopath, and my mother unable to bond emotionally with any of her children, so all four of my siblings and I have had horrendous relationship issues. My sister and one brother married sociopaths; another brother is a sociopath himself; and another brother and I opted out of society after years of therapy.
It’s absolutely true that when you’re raised by people with certain dysfunctions, you’re attracted to that type of person because it’s emotionally familiar. I had an excellent psychotherapist who told me as gently as he could, after a year of therapy, that there was nothing more he could for me. My patterns were too deeply ingrained. The best I could hope for in life was to recognize that once again I’d fallen into the same destructive relationship, and then extricate myself more quickly.
I was upset at this diagnosis, but it turned out to be true. After I stopped seeing my therapist, I went out and–armed with all the self-defense and self-awareness weapons he’d given–consecutively got into the two worst relationships of my life. The last one will someday be the basis of a novel, because it’s utterly beyond belief.
I’ve been alone since 2000, and I plan to stay that way. I’m attracted only to sickos, which means that I am–as my therapist said–nonviable. It’s a hard thing to accept about yourself, but when you’re raised by mentally ill parents, how else can you be?
Please, Miguel, please, please, please!!! Do not fall into the fatalistic trap some psychologists set for their clients. You can live a good, productive life. Do not look into the past. Look forward, always forward!
Wow, must it be so obvious? Someone got dumped, and dumped *hard*.
I’ve met many such sociopaths in my life. They are devoid of human emotions but are adept at mimicking things like warmth, empathy or even love. Sociopaths prey upon people who come from abusive families or who are emotionally fragile. Even when armed with this knowledge it is still easy to be duped and lured into one of these relationships.
Scientists say that falling in love makes a person temporarily lose 30 IQ points. It’s no wonder we see so many of these destructive psycho relationships.
“All of us, at one time or another, will have a close, if not intimate, relationship with a sociopath.”
ALL of us? Um, no. Not even close.
“We encounter numerous Bernie Madoff types in our lives.” We do? Maybe YOU do, I don’t.
I think you need to move out of Hollywood, or whatever drama-land you live in and come back to the real world. It’s nice here. But maybe you’d be too bored. Maybe you’re one of the people you describe in your third paragraph. Sounds like, if you ask me.
I’ve racked my brains and can only think of one person who fits into this category. She was a friend I had when my husband was in the military. She was a homely woman, but her personality attracted men like I’ve never seen.
Her husband was extremely handsome and devoted to her. She controlled the poor guy, like making him trade in his beloved truck for a car before he left for Iraq. There was no rhyme nor reason for it, except the truck was something he loved and she wanted to take it away from him because she could. She began an affair when he was deployed to Iraq with her neighbors brother. The guy was about 10 years younger than she was. The neighbors found out and drama ensued. I stayed friends with her only because of her daughter who was the same age as mine. I often had the girl for whole weekends, even had her over Christmas. The woman spent so much money while her husband was deployed that he came home to not a dime in his account and facing bankruptcy. We had him move in with us for awhile, poor guy. PSTD on top of a wife like that. We tried to convince him to divorce her, to get custody of his daughter, but he refused saying he still loved his wife!!
I was nodding in agreement all the way until “the sociopath uses sex as the ultimate form of manipulation and control, but feels little to no emotion in the process” but was taken aback by what followed:
1. I was astonished that the sentence linked to a self-promoting sociopath instead of the myriad of peer-reviewed and published studies about this. Linking to this site is about as credible as linking to Sam Valkin. The site is a poorly written and self-centered blog that purports to describe sociopathy. It does so in a way that is dispassionate towards the incredible wake of destruction left by this condition.
I then realized that none of the links contained credible well-researched information. There was a link to someone’s extraordinarily dated personal page that includes the disclaimer that the author is not a psychologist; a scare link to a Salon article about Madoff; a sales link to Amazon for a book by Freud, the first link I mentioned, a link to wikipedia page on an unrelated disorder, and then two more sales links to Amazon (including one for an iPod!).
2. I was primarily astonished that the closing paragraphs discuss the difficulties that men have while being in a relationship with a female sociopath. While studies have produced a range in the estimate of the percentage of people who are sociopaths (books written for the public by psychologists state numbers as low as 1%, from Dr. Hare, and 4% from Dr. Stout), they all seem to agree that there are vastly more male sociopaths than female sociopaths. Thus, it is astonishing to read your article’s warning about sociopathic women without ever addressing this statistic or the harm
that will befall the partners of male sociopaths.
3. The article describes “hysterical” and “dramatic” women, complete with a dated and stereotypical “Fatal Attraction” warning and the suggestion that you pay the site by going over to Amazon to watch the movie.
These descriptions are more likely to be associated with individuals who have a bipolar personality disorder. The only specific individual mentioned in the article was Madoff and I really don’t think that the major issue with him was that he was a drama llama.
4. One issue that repeatedly comes up in any discussion of sociopathy, or psychopathy, is its placement amongst disorders. Neither are in the DSM-IV or the ICD-10, although antisocial personality disorder is (and the ICD-10 includes dissocial disorder). Both the DSM and ICD explicitly state that psychopathy and sociopathy are found within the ASPD & DPD. The working group for DSM-V has recommended a revision of APD to include “Antisocial/Psychopathic Type.”
Dr. Hare has found that those afflicted by psychopathy are diagnosed with ASPD. In other words, they are a subset of ASPD individuals. A The majority of APSD individuals are male. The majority of Borderline personality disorder (BPD) are female. It is a very different set of behaviors in the individual that lead to its own set of distinct traumas for the victim.
4. There are also strong disagreements regarding the difference between “psychopath” and “sociopath.” My own research suggests that lay people have drawn sharp differences between these two but those sharp differences are all over the map of the disorder. Researchers are much more focused on diagnostic criteria, brain imaging, and chemical neuroanatomy.
No one with any knowledge of the subject confuses psychopathy/sociopathy with a borderline personality disorder.
5. There are areas of active research that suggest that dopamine-related disorders (schizophrenia, addiction, ADHD, autism,anti-social personality disorder) are primarily found amongst men while serotonin/norepinephrine disorders (anxiety, depression, bipolar personalty disorders) are primarily found amongst women. It is fascinating research and ideally will lead to ways to mitigate the damage done by people with personality disorders. If this line of fundamental research proves fruitful, it suggests there may be ways in the future to mitigate the damage caused by those with the disorder.
6. The article then shockingly claims that “even some therapists” will tell you that the proper response is to become exploitive as well. Really? Who? I have never heard such nonsense. Therapists never tell people what to do. Therapists help one live a life of integrity through a better understanding of ones’ story. Developing exploitative and manipulative relationships is not really a part of that. If the author received that advice than perhaps he misunderstood it and was asked to consider being more, oh shall we say, “manly” and not a push-over wimp in a normal relationship. Or, perhaps, if he received that advice he should have spent his time searching for a new therapist instead of writing this fluff opinion piece.
7. The premise of the article is that victims of sociopaths and (presumably) victims of those with borderline personality disorder have chosen their fate because “normalcy does not make for a good story” and thus they are attracted to the destruction of the sociopath. Even more outrageous is the statement that victims “find the narrative of their own existence in the relationship.” Yet your first sentence directly contradicts this. Well, which is it?
The judicial system has abandoned the notion that rape victimes chose their fate, medicine has abandoned the notion that one’s character determines one’s illnesses. Consequently, people are no longer as deeply ashamed of being a victim and are able to appear as witnesses at a trial or to openly acknowledge cancer. We, as a society, now treat these people with empathy.
Why on earth would you make the claim that victims of someone with a personality disorder somehow chose *their* fate? There is no evidence to support your conclusion. In fact, it has been documented that most victims speak eloquently about how they got into their relationship because of a desire for the quiet peace of normalcy.
Your attempt to “blame the victim” only drives victims into further silence and thus empowers the perpetrator.
Nice job, jerk.
But hey, at least you’ve earned some bank off those cheesy amazon links!
oops and my apologies… I inadvertently used the word “bipolar” twice when I ment to use the word “borderline.” Off-the-cuff thoughts don’t always get to my typing fingers appropriately!
As some above, some male specific descriptions wuld have rounded this out.
That being said, I work in mental health and as I hear the dysfunctional high drama stories unfold I end up eventually saying “Boring is good.”
Often the drama is sought because it is what the nervous system knows. Adrenaline needs something to latch on to. But for some victims it does eventully become too tiring, and that’s when there is room to help. Until then? Not so much.
As for the sociopath? Even the Bible says let them go.
As some above, some male specific descriptions would have rounded this out.
That being said, I work in mental health and as I hear the dysfunctional high drama stories unfold I end up eventually saying “Boring is good.”
Often the drama is sought because it is what the nervous system knows. Adrenaline needs something to latch on to. But for some victims it does eventully become too tiring, and that’s when there is room to help. Until then? Not so much.
As for the sociopath? Even the Bible says let them go.
I think it’s time to watch Body Heat again. Another good one is Kalifornia, with Brad Pitt and David Duchovny. Working as a parole officer I met many a sociopath. Pitt has it down.
Manipulative, destructive and without remorse: I’m wondering if some journalists are a kind of sociopath. The ones who:
- find victims and victims’ families
- convince them to pour out all their pain and trouble into the on camera interview
- edit it for their own purpose, for ratings
- publish a story or air it
- collect their bonus or pulitzer
- And then move on the the next set of victims.
Have you ever seen journalists show real remorse for using people for ratings?
Mr. Miller,
This is a great article and something every man who has encountered and is or thinking about being in a relationship with a “high maintenance” woman (as us laymen will identify them)should read and take heed.
I sent this on to my friends with a headline “Now they tell me!”
I can only say, outside your back and forth with the people who want to better identify the condition, that the reality of being hooked into this type of person is nothing short of a nightmare, especially if you are married to them and they have the leverage of children.
You are absolutely right on the following points:
1. They never lose sight of their self interest. Mine said “It is all about my survival now” as she systematically dismantled everything and everyone around her. Nothing was out of bounds. Anyone who dared disagree was immediately lumped into the “conspiracy” against her. What she meant by survival was not her physical condition, but the maintaining of her persona.
I’m convinced this type of person is an actor on a stage in a play called her life. She directs the other lesser actors to do what she wants them to do ash she scripts what “should happen” next. You don’t perform her way, she throws you aside, after trying to punish you for not following her.
She “acts” her way through relationships. For example, she doesn’t really understand sacrifice, except if it gets her credit for it. Intimacy is mimicked in return for something else (usually financial stability).
2. You get sucked in. I think it is a combination of seductive reasoning (the Robin Williams rule) and the ability of the person to sell their version of what is going to happen. They always have another plan, another thought, another dream and THIS time it will work. All of the plans have one thing in common- the person’s success or recognition as being talented or brilliant AND their continued lifestyle of their choice. No matter who else suffers. They cannot “see” their responsibility to anyone else.
3. Fatigue is a motivating factor. You get tired struggling against the unrelenting tide of the newest new crazy outburst or idea and just give in to get away from it. It was called “intense moments” by her. To her they were intense, to us it was crazy on steroids!
4. If you are introduced to a woman and your friend says she is the nicest person except for the occasional “Drama Queen” moments, start running. In a straight line if possible! It is the quickest way to get distance.
5. You can’t change them. Don’t try. It is a waste of time, or in some cases, decades. Just cut your losses, move on, build another life.
6. They will ruin you emotionally and financially. It is ALL ABOUT THEM! They will do anything to keep the dream going, even ruining their own family.
7. There is no breaking up with such a woman. You said it, I’ve seen it. She is convinced that anyone she decides she isn’t done playing with is really still “obsessed with her”. And it delights them. The worse thing that can happen to them is that you stop paying attention, any attention- good or bad. It maddens them.
8. The domination of other women is a distinct warning sign. If the woman talks about how everyone was jealous, or that other men were looking but she turned them away, or how lucky you are to have a woman wanted by so many others- run…just run.. . You aren’t lucky, they don’t want her, she makes other good women disgusted.
I asked a professional if this condition worsens over time. As they get older, their dreams begin to crash into reality and something has to give. They want to be famous but fame eluded them (not their fault though), they want to be rich but riches had escaped them (again not their fault), they want to be discovered by stardom (but that call never came, because “those people” didn’t know real talent when they saw it.). It has to at some point either shake them into reality or drive them farther into delusion- making them even more dangerous and desperate. The professional seemed to indicate that is the truth of the matter, I would like to know for sure. As I have witnessed a young woman turning from a person who had dreams of stardom turn into someone like the Carol Burnett character Norma Desmond.
Trust me on this. If even one man reads your article and recognizes his spouse or potential spouse in it, and takes steps to get out, you’ve done a good deed. It is a nightmare some of us just can’t seem to wake from and your comment about them never leaving doesn’t make me any happier.
Jeeezz.
One does not divorce an emotionally disturbed person (Ex was BPD). One merely manages them from another location. They do get worse over time, I was told by psychiatrists that after about 25, there’s just nothing that can be done.
I wonder how much our society would improve if we were able to identify (I’m leaving out treating for now – just identifying) such people, so that we could keep them from positions of power: police, church, politicians. There’s too many of them to keep them out of bureaucracies. But at least get them out of leadership positions, or where they have the right to kill, and the ability to easily fabricate or destroy evidence.
K, these people are remarkably adept at fooling professionals who are diagnosing the condition. Beside the moral ramifications, it would not be viable to keep them out of different positions.
My mother had one or more of these problems. You couldn’t keep her from being a mother and trying to destroy her childrens lives. I’m just glad she didn’t have Munschausens.
Very interesting topic, most people know very little about sociopath’s in society and that is how they remain “invisible” and able to prey upon us less informed decent person. Our only armor against them is to recognize that they are indeed sociopath’s so we can avoid becoming their next unsuspecting victim. Knowledge is power, information regarding this subject will shine the light on these dark soul’s who walk among us, sunlight becomes the best disinfectant, I recommend an ebook that is very informative on this subject that helped me to recognize sociopath’s in my life, “A Sociopath Beside Me” by Junie Moon. Be aware of those who surround you.
This article is so informative and on a subject that needs more attention, the sociopath. Most of us know very little, if anything, about this subject matter, and that is how these twisted, manipulative individuals, remain “invisible” to us decent people, recognition is our armor against becoming their next unsuspecting victim. Information is knowledge and knowledge is power, we must shine the light on these dark souls who walk among us and sunlight is the best disinfectant. Be aware of those who surround you, I recommend a great ebook on the subject that helped me to recognize the sociopath’s who enter my life, “A Sociopath Beside Me” by Junie Moon.
I have always considered most salesmen and lawyers to be sociopathic, if not outright sociopaths. It is customary for a salesman to lie to make a sale. Lawyers, and the politicians they become, do not even know the difference between truth and lie. I was in Manhattan recently and wondered about the fact that New Yorkers continually cross the street when the “don’t walk” light is blinking. Police officers never give tickets for jaywalking in New York. To me, this means that, as a culture, we have come to accept law breaking as okay — or that we do not really consider law breaking to be law breaking — which means we all have a sociopathic streak.