Psychopaths Are Charming?
It struck me that in almost every lay description of a psychopath, the word "charming" is inevitably used. (In The New Yorker piece, it appears four times.) There is an almost mandatory reference to how seductive, or affable, or personable, or-- charming-- the psychopath is, that always follows the initial description of their criminality or evil. Something along the lines of, "if you're not on guard, if you're just talking to them, you can't help but be sucked in." As The New Yorker describes,
The psychopath talks "entertainingly," Cleckley explained, and is "brilliant and charming," but nonetheless "carries disaster lightly in each hand."What's surprising about this description (to me) is how wrong it is. Quick example: on Google "psychopathy AND charming" gets 80k hits; on Pubmed it gets zero. In fact, to make the broadest generalization possible-- humor me for a minute-- it applies mostly to women. Men, in the presence of a psychopath, are not charmed, they're infuriated. You don't want to hear their crap, you want to stab them in the eye. It's unusual to find a man who is fascinated enough by psychopaths, serial killers, and the like, to record every Discovery Channel special on them; and the few that do are the type you figure to be a wedgie away from going Zodiac at the frat house. But there are plenty of young women are completely fascinated by them, watch all the TV shows, read the articles, etc.
Since I have no data on the male perspective on a psychopath's charm (or lack of it) I'll speak for myself, and I'm curious to know if it resonates with other people: psychopaths are an endless stream of words. They talk, they talk around, they talk around and around the actual point; they don't open up with "I need something from you" but drown you in endless, pointless but seemingly earnest talk about other things that somehow, in their mind, apply to the current problem. In a word, it is all bullshit. You know it's bullshit, but civility, or insecurity, force you to sit there and listen. It wears you down (which is the point), so that after all the "and my brother then..." and "but she told me that..." "He told me it would be okay if..." he finally asks you for "this really big favor" you are more inclined to give in. When I do an eval for a criminal trial, getting the truth out of one of these guys is painful to the point of euthanasia. They don't even lie directly to you, they overwhelm you with distractions, red herrings, sleight of hand, you ask, "what time did you get to the house?" and for the next twenty minutes, you never hear the words "time" or house" come out of their mouth.
None of that is charming, or engaging, or even slightly interesting to me.
Yet-- and by example here's one woman quoted in the article--
"He had killed his girlfriend because he thought she was cheating on him," she told me. "He was so charming about telling it that I found it hard not to fall into laughing along in surprise, even when he was describing awful thing," [said Carla] Harenski, who is thirty...Here's an example from Robert Hare himself:
One of my raters described an interview she did with a prisoner: "I sat down and took out my clipboard," she said, "and the first thing this guy told me was what beautiful eyes I had. He managed to work quite a few compliments on my appearance into the interview, so by the time I wrapped things up, I was feeling unusually... well, pretty. I'm a wary person, especially on the job, and can usually spot a phony. When I got back outside, I couldn't believe I'd fallen for a line like that."
I can see the easy explanation: these women are more easily manipulated, especially because the charm carries a sexual connotation. There's a power differential-- some of the fear is processed sexually, etc. Summary: the women don't see what's really in the psychopath.
But that doesn't seem right; these women aren't stupid; they've been around, and even on some level they must know the guy is bad news. So what if these women who are charmed see something in psychopaths everyone else doesn't? Are they detecting something good, or at least attractive, that I for one can't see?
Here's an example: psychopaths don't have empathy, but more specifically they don't understand other people's emotions. As the article points out, they interpret emotions linguistically, not emotionally. They know the word <sadness>, and the other words that explain or go with <sadness>, but they don't feel it. Perhaps emotional inability is made up for by a better linguisitic processing ability, such that they know/intuit better than most what to say to women, while non-psychopaths find themselves acutely aware of their emotions, but are unable to express them (e.g. are shy.)
Maybe women who are charmed by such men see them less as people and more as stories? Do women who find psychopaths charming also read more novels? Do these women have a common interest in certain types of books or movies? Etc.
Maybe I ormen can't sense the "charming" because men are immediately on the defensive because they sense a rival, or alpha male, etc?
This can be flipped around: we know psychopaths are manipulative, but it would be very interesting to find out how easily manipulated they are. Under what circumstances? Is it easier to trick them with money, numbers, logic, pictures? Do they fall for magic, optical illusions? Is it easier for a woman to seduce them, to manipulate them? Are they an easier mark for a con man?
How do you con a con man?
Addendum 12/8/08: a clarification on this post.
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
Recommend to a Friend
December 2, 2008 10:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A lot of what your describing matches exactly what I observed when my mother dated a physically abusive man. She is an incredibly strong and smart woman, but she took him back after the first time. When she recalls those days, she says she has no idea what she was thinking staying with him as long as she did. He was like a con man, he had an excuse or story for every transgression or outburst. They would talk for hours and hours on end during both the happy courting phase and the later abusive stages of the relationship.
The one argument I got into with him(regarding my behavior while visiting them) I gave up after 15 minutes because he was talking in circles. I packed my bag and cut the visit short.
December 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What you're looking at (indirectly) is CHARISMA. If I understand the pathology at all, as a layperson - psychopaths don't have the same insecurities, anxieties, or fears that normal people have. Without empathy, there's nothing giving them any reservations or hesitation in their performance. That kind of charisma is found in two places: either in legitimately secure, successful, adroit men (earned charisma); or, alternately, empty, pathological charisma.
Charisma is extremely important in mating. Physical beauty is similar - it's a bunch of markers which we react to regardless of why they're there or what they mean. Charisma is like a big pair of tits. Distracting...and also, irrelevant to someone's underlying character.
December 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As far as I'm aware, with any certainty, I've never met an actual psychopath. I mean, normally I don't sit there going "Is Fred a psychopath? I better take some notes". That said, one of my very first roommates was probably pretty close to the mark. At the very least he was a compulsive liar, certainly seemed to mostly be going through the motions when it came to emotional interactions, never displayed any sort of remorse when he hurt someone, and was constantly talking about nothing. He began courting one of my very close friends, and she was obviously taking the bait. So I told her about his seemingly compulsive lying and how bad an idea this all seemed. A little later he asks to speak to me, and asks me why I would tell her that he's a liar, to which I had to reply "Well, because you are." which set off an interminable barrage of nonsense patter from him. Finally I just left, it was that or throw him through the crappy walls of the apartment. Naturally they went out for a while, and it ended badly.
So yeah, I can't say I ever found him charming. Typically I got along with him, mostly by totally ignoring him. The same way you might put up with an irritating co-worker. My friend obviously felt different, and I think it was the constant flattering patter that played on her insecurities. His approaching her triggered animosity in me, for sure, and it was undoubtedly the whole alpha male thing, since she was a close friend and an attractive female.
As for other males, I recall him snaring one or two into being sort of subservient to him. Again by playing on insecurity, sort of a "You're weak, but I'm strong, so stick with me and reap some benefits" approach.
You know that guy that built the grizzly suit? I saw a documentary about his retard exploits, and that guy reminded me a lot of this guy.
Anyway, that's my "he was probably a psychopath" story.
December 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
There appears to be an underlying assumption in your post. I read it carefully, and didn't read ONE SINGLE WORD that suggested that psychopaths could also be female. Not ONE WORD about how susceptible you, or any other man, might be to FEMALE PSYCHOPATHS. I've met more than a few in my time, and the havoc they wrought was appalling. Men AND women appear to have no trouble swallowing their bullshit.
So, when you reference psychopaths and male and female responses to them, why is it that you phrased it as if the only psychopaths one might run into are male? There's nothing in your post to lead one to believe that you were intending to discuss male psychopaths only, and the reactions of men and women to them.
I will say that I have also seen men snowed by male psychopaths; you may have run into some singularly inept ones.
December 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From my personal experience, I'd say that so many women are psychopaths that nobody bothers to bring it up anymore.
Manipulation: Check
Talking in circles to avoid direct answers: Check
December 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
awesome post.
i also sort of agree with La BellaDonna, although the way i see it is that men show a greater variation in all traits, more men at the tail ends of the bell curve.
so naturally you'd not mention female psychopaths! there just are so many more male psychopaths out there.
but...when you do run across a female psychopath, they are potentially even scarier than the male psychos.
December 2, 2008 12:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Perhaps there is some correlation between the consumption of psychopaths as stories, and the women who become rather obsessed with the vampire genre and mythos.
Look at the story presented within "Bram Stoker's Dracula" itself.. Nina falls for the (ahem) charming Count, while the men in her life see the violence he represents and must rescue her from his clutches. She was able to love the "bad boy," and also be rescued by the "hero."
And on a side note, even Adolf Hitler had an Eva Braun.
December 2, 2008 1:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Eva Braun seems to correspond more closely to the sort of woman who would write proposals to Ted Bundy; from what I've read, she seemed to be close to nil in personality herself. Her most outstanding features appeared to be a striking degree of athleticism, and an obsessive attachment to Hitler; not much else. She watched movies, she bought clothes, she worked out, she was distraught that he didn't spend more time with her. There doesn't appear to be any indication of the charm or manipulative behavior usually associated with psychopaths.
From what I've read, it appears as if about 4% of the population has character traits that put them in the "psychopath" sector, and it seems to be pretty evenly divided between male and female. I found "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout both horrifying and enlightening, and it certainly seemed borne out by my own experiences. Just to make myself clear, Last, I enjoy your posts very much indeed; the emphasis in my first comment was primarily because I usually find those posts thoughtful and balanced, and I didn't know why this one seemed to be so slanted.
theOther: I think ... it depends, really. There's a lot of personal misery wrought by female psychopaths who are parents, especially since women are often primary caretakers; ditto for women who are teachers and nurses, who are also psychopaths. But historically, men have been in positions of greater power, in addition to simply having greater physical strength, so the harm they can cause is greater still. Psychopaths who run business (I'm looking at you, ENRON), doctors, college professors, world leaders - and fathers, of course.
Facetious, the behaviour you describe is absolutely what I'd expect in a female psychopath - in a male one, too.
December 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think you explained a large chunk of it in terms of processing the power differential, the fear, sexually. I also think there's something to be mined from the interrelationship between battered women and their partners.
To get more into the dynamics of what might be occurring ... it would be worthwhile to interview men who have been battered and continue in the same relationship ... as well as men who express their sexuality through D/S relationships with strangers.
December 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your description of the conversational style of psychopaths ("pointless but seemingly earnest talk about other things") is very similar to the kind of social conversations women have on their cell phones. Perhaps women are more vulnerable to male psychopaths because they speak vaguely similar languages.
December 2, 2008 3:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the charisma is a huge point. For women, confidence is an attractive thing. Psychopaths have have little in the way of emotions, thus no fear. For men, sexual attractiveness comes more from physical attributes, but there may be some attraction in a female psychopath's willingness to do sexual favors that other women wouldn't do(Always hear guys talk about the crazy ones being more fun in bed). For a female psychopath, sex is a physical act with no emotion, probably more akin to a stage performance than an act of love.
Taking a page from another common topic here. Narcissim. I would guess it is a safe bet that a lot of psychopaths are also NDP, largely due to the common factor of not feeling guilt. But this will effect men and women differently due to shame. Now it is possible that a psychopath feels no shame, I doubt it. Otherwise they simple wouldn't care about anything anyone else did.
Shame comes from external factors, thus shame is an attempt to act on societies values. Those values are different for men and women, thus a male psychopath acts out on what they seem as the male way(physical violence), while the women psychopaths tend to act out their parts in the female way(emotional violence). Perhaps this why male psychopaths kill while female psychopaths merely drive people to commit suicide(thinking of the recent Myspace suicide case).
Both are seeking to redress some real or imagined wrong. The difference is in methodology. Not that you don't have women who act more like men and vice versa, but psychopaths are just playing the part that society has created for them.
In closing, I would say that their goal oriented manipulative nature means that a psychopath can be charming if they understand their subject and they want to be charming. They are trying to tell you what you want to hear, the rest is a matter of if they actually understand you well enough to know what you want to hear.
December 2, 2008 3:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is bullshit or 'pointless but seemingly earnest talk about other things' that immediately flaggable? The example given only shows up the conversational style as 'bullshit' because it's a direct question, but in a party or social gathering where the subject meanders in and out of purposes isn't 'pointless but seemingly earnest talk' par for the course? Charisma or charm whether earnt or projected is likewise more easily circulated without raising any alpha male alarms. Ultimately, if pyschopaths supply a patter equivalent to charm perhaps it only falls apart when introduced to high stakes demands (asking the criminal 'what time did you leave the house?'), in everyday social settings where little is vested in demands patter is charm, as are pyschos.
December 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Perhaps women are more vulnerable to male psychopaths because they speak vaguely similar languages."
Golden words worth repeating.
--Another comment: with some of these personality disorders, we pay attn to successful ones; ther are also unsuccessful sociopaths, borderlines, narcissists. They simply annoy us and we move on. They don't intrigue us because they generally don't get away with any astonishing things such as dating intelligent, sucecssful, attractice people or craftily cultivating some entire business plan until it has to crumble under the sheer extensiveness of folly.
December 2, 2008 5:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It is very easy to con a con man, because they are the ones that are always looking for the easy way out. Have you ever heard of the saying "You can't cheat an honest man"? It is very true because if you give an honest man a deal that's "too good to be true", he'd see it right away, where as a con man would just see it as a "really good deal".
checkout this website for some very good info:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/
Also I really like your writings. Thank you and keep it up.
December 2, 2008 7:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A lot of the content in your post led me to think of "The Game" by Neil Strauss, and how "Charm" or incessant babbling with made up exaggerated stories (and pointless tricks) anecdotally worked with women. And, I agree, this "Charm" quality is more an indication of Bullshit for guys.
"The Game" - Charm, manipulation, and narcissism all in one.
December 2, 2008 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I have just recently seen The Dark Knight movie.
From reading the discussion above, I think Heath Ledger playing The Joker must have done a lot of studying about psychopaths before taking on the role.
Fortunately for moviegoers, his character is given a LOT of dialogue. It is circuitous, charming, frightening, and just plain freaky.
December 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is a very interesting post. I have often noticed that many people seem unable to see through the BS propagated by people who might be psychopaths (I'm just guessing on most of the ones I've met which is a pretty low number). It took me a few years and a really bad experience to learn to see through people who could be considered psychopaths. Now, if I meet someone and the person immediately knows exactly the right thing to say and flatters me before he or she knows me (or pretends to know me better than I know myself) then I tend to run the other way. I think for a lot of people it's an inexperience issue. Also, you have to be around someone an awful lot to realize they are a psychopath. If you just see them every so often and have only a few conversations it's probably not that obvious. Since most people assess others more by looks and presentation it might be difficult to pick up on some of the things that typify a psychopath.
I would also add that some of the most blatant examples of psychopaths whom I have met were women.
December 3, 2008 12:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't like this storytelling approach to medicine. It seems to proceed like this: first a doctor tells a story, then s/he allows that story to inform how s/he treats hir patients; then diagonostic and treatment guidelines are developed on the basis of a story. If medicine and particularly psychiatry want to be sciences then they need to evaluate evidence not just tell beautiful stories.
So far as I can tell, the belief that gender was of social and not biological origin was the product of storytelling and look how well that turned out. See eg, David Reimber.
December 3, 2008 2:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
well...the only psychopath I can think of clearly right now, though I've encountered many in my work, was a man who was my boss when I was 16 years old.
He tried to seduce me by telling me tales of drug dealing and being a hit man. Though I was young, I do not believe he was making these stories up.
He was my boss and so for awhile in my young naivete I put up with his stories and tried to convince myself they were interesting and that he was not dangerous anymore or at least not to me...
Ultimately the moment he touched me I freaked out...left the job on the spot and never told anyone why I quit. I was NOT charmed. He repelled me and disgusted me, but I do have to say he did intrigue me for a while.
I didn't tell anyone about him for several years. I was afraid he would come and get me.
Beyond Meds
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/about/
December 3, 2008 2:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The first guy I ever kissed was a psychopath. Really. Over the course of 30 days, he managed to date me (and three of my friends) *while committed to a psychiatric unit.* I mean, he started dating us before he got committed, but he had us all visit on different days and told us not to tell each other about the "relationship." He also told each of us wildly different stories about his "past."
The fact that we were all also 14 and boy-crazy may have had something to do with it. At least, that's what I like to tell myself.
December 3, 2008 6:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I dated someone that is probably a sociopath, but we only went out 4 times. This was 4 years ago. First, he tried to get me to bond with him by fabricating a similarity that he and I shared, which I was willing to consider even though it didn't feel like it fit. Then, he tried to instruct me on how to see him by the way he told stories and the role he gave himself in the story and the amount of inner conflict he claimed to have. Oh what a good guy. Barf.
The fourth date was a cocktail party I had at my house. Then I caught him in a lie about what he told one of his friends to try with my semi drunk female roommate (which is never cool). That was the last time I saw him. I told him over the phone that I didn't want to see him anymore. He asked why, I said "Something about you rubs me the wrong way and I'm going to trust my gut" and he said "I'm sorry I make you feel bad about yourself" and I said "That's not what I said, but it is an example of what I meant."
1 out of hundreds of dates isn't bad.
My guy friends that I don't yet consider to be men didn't see a problem with his behavior, but my male friend that I consider to be a real man, instantly validated my "off" feeling. But by the time I got their feedback it was too late for the dude.
He contacted me a few times after. The first I responded to, he wanted to send me something he had written because I was the only intelligent person he knew (I knew that wasn't true, and even if it was, hello, internet, find someone else). I declined and ignored all other of his attempts to contact me. It has been about a year and a half since his last contact attempt.
As for men . . . I know a lot of men that fall for borderlines and their bullshit. Really annoying to watch too. It's almost like they are communicating in the same fantasy land. As if their existence helps the guy fulfill a fantasy about being a hero, a real man. How can men be so susceptible to their bullshit? ;)
Luckily for all people, there are healthy people out there, you have to be willing to focus on them, and not discard them because they are 'boring' compared to the nuts.
Yay LaBellaDona! loved everything you wrote. And sociopath next door was a great book.
December 3, 2008 6:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Roger,
A sociopath feels no shame. I recommend "The Sociopath Next Door" as it also differentiates between NPD and sociopathy. As well as give examples of female and male sociopath behavior.
December 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dr. Benway, I'm not disputing your assertion, since the thing speaks for itself; but I'd be interested to know what bearing it has on the subject being discussed. To my knowledge, neither dominant nor submissive sexual behaviour has any particular bearing on psychopathy. As far as I know, the behaviours are not mutually exclusive; that is, it is possible for a psychopath to be sexually submissive OR dominant - but again, it has no bearing on the subject under discussion.
December 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ew. I once interviewed a real psychopath in the ER (I didn't know at the time and only realized the diagnosis after, when I thought about it) and he was the creepiest guy ever. Sure, he tried all that bullshit, but also openly admitting raping his 8 year old sister (yes, with a smile that I suppose in a totally different circumstance in a parallel universe could be called charming), beating people, etc, with no distress. Yet he also described having no trouble finding women to sleep with him - mostly high school girls. I have no idea what could have been attractive about him except a manipulative demeanor, that was, at times, superficially pleasant.
December 3, 2008 12:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The first time I felt for it, I was 14, and he was magical. But something was off, so I pushed him away. I met him again and my pride got me - the pride and foolishness of a 1st year Psychology student. I knew what he was, but I could also "see" how frail he was deep inside, how 'human' - and "I believed I could've saved him" or that “I was special to him somehow”. As a psychologist :-), I was supposed to understand and heal, somehow - or so I thought. Or needed to think.
I over-evaluated myself. I thought I could handle him. Luckily, the magic broke off when I watched him do the exact same things with another woman. The same gestures, that same look in his eyes. Her confusion and eventual heartache. His continuing towards me as if none of her really meant anything. That’s when my emotions caught up with my head.
I met the 2nd one when I was 26, 2 months into graduating my masters. He was too good to be true, so my guards were up from the moment we met. I had learnt my lesson, I thought. Saving him was bullshit – but with all the things I had learnt, much of him made no sense to me whatsoever. And that was the trap I fell into – why was he like this? Was he born into it? What had made him that way? What were the motives behind his actions? Did he have any weaknesses? Did he care about anything in the world? Could he? Surely, I though, there must be an explanation.
I don't 'read novels' and most films I watch are detective stories. But it's not the 'story' – it’s the mystery; and it's the promise of humanity somewhere deep in there, despite all the evidence. If you prefer, it was my need to believe that there’s no such thing as pure, unexplainable ‘evil’; that monsters have a soul. And his finding me was his chance, or his need for help. No one meets a psychologist by chance, right?
Of course, to them, that must've made me a challenge. No2 made me stress that I could not read his mind. LOL He actually enjoyed that.
my IQ is over 150, and no, I'm not stupid, nor gullible. I was fully aware and 'informed' each time. Each of them was a challenge for me – an emotional one.
How do you solve a puzzle when you can’t see the pieces?
From what I've noticed, you're right about them not feeling emotions, but being great at talking them. I can't describe the shock and sheer fascination at watching someone speak the words that usually express the most intimate, powerful emotions - with absolutely no impression of them anywhere. Is fascination an explanation for love? Is anything? I have no idea. You tell me.
Also - yes. Most men become very aggressive and competitive around these guys. But they also have a couple of very close, childhood men-friends. I'm guessing that since women are 'food' - they must need some sort of company.
I tend to think I figured it out – why they ‘take hostages’. For the primitive among them, it’s a need to see for themselves and prove their own power. Low self-esteem, and very ambivalent.
For the more evolved, it’s envy. They can only observe the power of emotions, but they cannot feel them. It’s terribly frustrating for such a powerful man – something he cannot do.
December 3, 2008 2:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Before you guys keep hammering the "female psychopath" theme, consider the conditions the doc works in. He evaluates prisoners. Ok, say it with me: male prisoners. Ok, self-righteousness glasses off, people!
December 3, 2008 2:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, women are verbally communicative, and the type of antisocial you describe is also very verbal. As a generalization women enjoy chat, men don't, and this type of antisocial is very good about it.
A man who is excessively detailed in his communication is, to many women, almost like a fantasy. It's rather similar as if a man found a woman who was dressed sexy, and behaved in a physical and aggressive, communicative straightforward way (as opposed to the more verbally detailed, less direct, and sexually conservative communication/behavior more common in women). There are plenty of male fantasies about these types of women, women who behave almost like men (very sexually aggressive and not interested in commitment/communication), but are otherwise sexually attractive. The common male fascination with "no good crazy women" comes from that. Male singers write songs about such women, you've websites like suicidegirls.com which capitalizes on it, etc.
December 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Whether male or female, what is often called charm feels manipulative and predatory to me. The lack of anxiety without an accompanying sense of depth or a measure of vulnerability doesn't entice me in the least. My reaction does seem to differ depending on the gender of the 'charmer.' With men, my annoyance or anger swells pretty quickly. With women I feel anxiety, I become extremely reserved and generally flea as quickly as possible. I'm far more reluctant, I suppose, to behave aggressively with predatory women than with predatory men.
December 3, 2008 3:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The Last Psychiatrist evaluates male prisoners? I didn't know that. However, his entry doesn't specify - doesn't mention - anything about his experience in evaluating male prisoners; it makes blanket statements about psychopaths, and is presented in such a fashion that a casual reader could receive the impression that all psychopaths are male. That's my objection. LP writes very well indeed, and has consistently been hammering himself on the need for precision in the use of words, phrases, and terms. In point of fact, I was looking for clarification - not attempting to abuse him. I was actually hoping we would hear from him again on the subject, but so far, not yet.
Alone's response: to be very clear, my "feedback appreciated" first line meant exactly that. This isn't at all a rigorous article, it's really my own (N=1) countertransference with psychopaths. However, my countertransference is so different from the typical "charming," or even the uneasy, hairs stand on the back of your neck feeling, that I wondered if it didn't have to do with gender. So I was soliciting feedback-- women, what do you think, guys, do you agree? etc.
That said, look at it the other way. You are (legitimately) taking issue with my N=1 subjective opinion on this; but why doesn't anyone, ever, take issue with the similarly subjective "psychopaths are charming?" Which is my point: we learn things, define things, a certain way, not based on evidence, but convention.
And yes, I evaluate male (and female) prisoners all the time, but for the court (e.g. competency, probation, etc) I don't do any treatment of inmates.
December 3, 2008 5:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can only think of one person I ever met who meets the description. As far as I could tell, from the few months I knew him, his life was running one con game after another, under a series of false names and forged documents. He always had a string of half-way plausible excuses for not doing whatever work was he was supposed to have done.
I only knew him for a few months, because people got wise to him and he needed to make a run for it, doubtless to yet another false identity. But yes, he was charming.
December 4, 2008 1:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone--
Are they charming? They can be. But I think there may be a lot of variation as to a) who finds them charming and b) the ones that make the news may be far more charming than the ones that don't.
I've met charming people who are not sociopaths. I guess I'd have to define charming. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charm%5B2%5D - with that definition.
I find Alone/LP charming (fascinating) and I feel attracted to him based on how/what he writes. Who knows what I'd actually think in person.
It's interesting to me that, even from myself, how many people brought up their own stories about sociopaths.
December 4, 2008 1:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I also like the way you write La BellaDonna and I am wondering if you have a blog?
December 4, 2008 4:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So, I'd like to return to the topic of "how does one manipulate a psychopath?". They are indeed flawed people, and we have determined that they have large blindspots in their worldview. Dangerous, sure, but it is sometimes impossible or slow to extricate on from ones life, so what profit can come of the situation.
here are my offhand thoughts on how to get them to do what you want based upon their failings [I am not a doctor]
- Linguistic emotional understanding only.
It follows that it is as easy to lie to a sociapath about ones own internal state as it is for them to lie about theirs. One simply needs to use the words and outward appearances of an emotion to be convincing.
- Narcissism
is it safe to inflate the ego of a sociopath? is there any point? Can one be manipulated more easily with imaginary carrots?
- Continious babble
Good christ, I have no idea what this can be used for except to drive ones self insane. Maybe you could get one to sell your used cars? I wonder what techniques could be used to /lead/ a sociopath's talk. is it possible?
Are there other thoughts on this or additional sources of information? I'd like to know more, as it has been a discussion of interest at the office of late.
December 4, 2008 5:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I get the feeling that there's still a big hole in this conversation--something that we're all talking around, the common thread, but none of us have put our finger on it yet. I'm not exactly sure what it is, though.
Of course, not everyone who is charming is a sociopath. Not everyone who is manipulative is a sociopath. Not everyone who is self-centered is a sociopath. Even all three of these traits put together does not a sociopath make.
While I enjoyed reading *The Sociopath Next Door,* it was a little too pop-culture for my tastes. It reinforced some stereotypes while claiming to debunk others--which is a somewhat dangerous combination.
The thing about sociopaths that I find interesting is that they are able to evoke such intense emotions in people--emotions ranging from dread to attraction--while possessing such a limited capacity for emotion themselves.
December 4, 2008 8:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Intriguing: a psychopath, by virtue of not truly experiencing emotions, can appear to be supremely self-confident and well-balanced compared to the clamor of everyday life. By many of the indicators we normally look for in people, a psychopath may seem quite attractive: he can tell stories well (think of a comedian with a set routine - he's just acting, but the people still laugh), he pays attention (sexual or otherwise) to his interviewer, he can sit in a prison and still smile and tell a woman she's pretty. We then tell ourselves stories to go along with his actions, much as we talk about our computers being spiteful or our puppies loving us. But the puppy doesn't love you, he just understands that he'll get more of whatever he wants by cuddling up to you and sitting pretty. Understanding and accepting that requires a healthy dose of realism and more than a pinch of cynicism and women in particular are not (usually) socialized to being so brutal in their opinions of others.
December 4, 2008 11:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's a thought: How much does the context of Alone's interaction with these people influence his reaction? When I'm talking to someone it isn't, typically, in a setting where I'm trying to probe their minds. For example, the guy I mentioned in my previous post was someone I knew throughout high school, and while we weren't friends, I never suspected him of being so off until having lived with him for a while.
If, instead, someone said "Hey, talk to this dude for a while and give me your impression on how he's stitched together", then perhaps I'd have seen, and analyzed to some degree, his counter-social behavior. If I were to repeat this experience multiple times then my sense of it would certainly heighten, and if you add in some heinous criminal acts associated with these people, then my reaction could certainly turn from "What a douche" to being creeped out, hostile, and frustrated.
I suppose it doesn't help that in most day to day lives you can simply walk away from people that you find to be creeps, of any sort, while various other professions have to deal with it.
Alone's response: this is a good point.
December 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think Casey Anthony is a classic psychopath - that young woman in Florida whose little girl Caylee Anthony disappeared. She is a pathological liar, and although she cries in court, it usually is only because she is being sent to jail - I have never seen her shed a tear while her daughter's disappearance is being discussed. For the most part, her face is flat of any emotions. Her mother seems to have some kind of mental pathology also, just can't put a finger on it. My skin crawls every time her face appears on the news.
December 4, 2008 4:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I guess MALE psychopaths are infuriating to men... but I can assure, from painful personal experience, that FEMALE psychopaths are charming. At least, she was to me, and to a lot of other people I know.
And painful. And manipulative.
So: I guess they can choose their target for charm. She was quite liberal (men and women), maybe a male psychopath would aim more at women. I do not know.
And I would never try to con a con man (or woman), just run away as far as possible...
December 4, 2008 10:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From a recent New Scientist, here's the article "Bad guys really do get the most girls". It refers to two studies that suggest that features of the 'dark triad' lead to reproductive success.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826614.100-bad-guys-really-do-get-the-most-girls.html
December 4, 2008 11:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sociopaths are not charming. Their obsfucation during interviews makes me wanna hurl. I find them utterly frustrating and infuriating. Ok, every now and then I am a bit in awe of just how deep their psychopathy can run, but in a "wow, what a perfect textbook specimen of a sociopath here in the flesh" kind of way. Certainly not in a "wow, he's a cold-blooded son-of-a-bitch but I want to do him" kind of way. Someone with a lack of conscience who lies his ass off to get what he wants (and then moves on to threats or violence when that doesn't work) is not even vaguely charming. Perhaps some chicks dig the arrogance or enjoy the futile challenge/project of trying to get some guy who will never know what love is to love them? But charming? Nah.
December 5, 2008 12:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I forgot to ask - why do you want to con a psychopath?
December 5, 2008 4:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
THANK YOU belladonna for saying exactly what I was fuming to myself while reading this: "There appears to be an underlying assumption in your post. I read it carefully, and didn't read ONE SINGLE WORD that suggested that psychopaths could also be female. Not ONE WORD about how susceptible you, or any other man, might be to FEMALE PSYCHOPATHS. I've met more than a few in my time, and the havoc they wrought was appalling. Men AND women appear to have no trouble swallowing their bullshit."
Amen to that. TheLastPsychiatrist, when you say: "In fact, to make the broadest generalization possible-- humor me for a minute-- it applies mostly to women. Men, in the presence of a psychopath, are not charmed, they're infuriated." Trust me when I tell you, I have seen a few psychopathic women who do THE SAME THING TO MEN, completely fooling (and eventually destroying) them, and it is infuriating to we women who can see through the psychopathic women's bullshit.
I come here assuming you'll be fair with gender assumptions and have to read this crap about only women falling for psychopaths? I know you mainly work with males, but you're intelligent enough to know that that doesn't mean only men are psychopaths. (Perhaps it's mostly male psychopaths who are physically violent and thus able to be put in prison? The female psychopaths I knew destroyed men by baiting their superiority complexes and driving them into walls -- obviously I'm summarizing, it's very drawn-out and painful to watch.)
(Also, I'm angry precisely because I respect you and expect better. I express it *because* I know you'll take it seriously -- any other site with a post like this, I'd have walked away from and never returned.)
December 5, 2008 4:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
(Or is this another of your experiments where you purposefully present something that taps into nearly-unconsciously-held beliefs in order to draw out opinions? Because considering that, indeed, you are intelligent enough not to make such a flagrantly gender-based statement, and considering the underlying "haha, silly women" that comes through and, predictably enough, is pounced on by people who say things like "Perhaps women are more vulnerable to male psychopaths because they speak vaguely similar languages," I'm wondering if that wasn't by design... were you trying to see how many men would be baited by that and react with statements illustrating the very weakness -- assumed male superiority -- that female psychopaths prey on?)
December 6, 2008 12:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
no no no.. women like you to beleive that they are charmed by assholes and psychopaths. But in truth, they are all different in what their looking for. It depends what you like.. would you like an extremely manipulative and crazy girl?? that manipulates you into having sex...it depends. you see what im saying. Its kind of...charming, for a girl to be manipulated. Imagine a faggot..he would love to be manipulated in the quest of being put on his knees and splurged on his eye sockets. Its like touching their bum but not actually touching it...so they feel sexy..you put on the heater. Someone so manipulative to get something they want makes the other person feel at the center of attention. I don't like sex personally. I find it kind of...well.. disgusting.
Am I some sort of attention seeker now? no. But how intriguing is that you study a psychopath, when you should be studying the way you yourself act in order to have a relative understanding of the outliers..(e.g psychopaths).
December 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
wow Fraise,
this is the first time Alone has pissed you off as a woman???
He is always offending the hell out of me on gender issues!!
I still get a kick out of reading him though.
Beyond Meds
http://bipolarblast.wordpress.com/about
December 6, 2008 11:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear LP:
This is complex. I volunteered for two years at a homeless outreach project. Our boss was macho, street smart, but he admitted there was one guy who constantly managed to con him.
"I know he is lying sack of shit" our boss said. "But time and again, that guy manages to talk me into trusting him yet another time. Ive tried and tried to identify whatever trigger point in me he is accessing, but so far I just can figure out why I keep falling for his con."
And a male friend of mine fell for a psychopath and got entangled in this guys cult for ten years and did horrible things in loyalty to him. He has seen other people fall for this guy, even after he got out of prison. My friend is still trying to figure it all out. He wonders if psychopaths have some kind of physical/biochemical glitch that makes them fascinating at an animal level.
"You know it's bullshit, but civility, or insecurity, force you to sit there and listen"
Maybe more women fall for this precisely because we are socialized to be nice, be polite, sit there and listen.
And yes, maybe we do see a psychopath not so much as a person but as a story...and write ourselves into the story as Heroine and Rescuer in a Grand Romantic Epic.
My mother did this in relation to my asshole father.
Hence my utter distrust of love and passion and the big fat tax deductible I get for my yearly therapy bill.
During W's adminstration I tried to call it war tax resistance.
(hollow laugh)
However, here is a great way to take the magic out of any wordy bullshitologist:
Listen to the verbiage with just 1/4 of your attention. Meanwhile, look at them, study their nonverbals and imagine you are listening to the TV with the sound turned off.
And remember this:
Even when folks like this are telling you the factual truth, it is not truthful--because it is part of a larger lie.
December 6, 2008 11:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That is the mystery: these people elicit devotion from us, yet are unable to reciprocate it.
And the mystery and promise of humanity--that's the bait.
http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=jaa.031.0521a
(abstract(
Assaultive Projective Identification and the Plundering of the Victim's Identity
Stanley Rosenman
A destructive mode of projective identification is delineated: a predator's catastrophic attack calculated to cause the victim a stress disorder marked by a disarrayed identity. This discomposure enables the perpetrator to aggrandize a manifold inroad upon the victim's identity to imprint, intrude, mingle and/or lodge his representation into it; to ravage, steal from, impoverish, and/or corrupt it; finally to have his representation emerge as an internal regulator of the traumatized prey's functioning. The victim's debased integrity is manifest in the symptoms of his ensuing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Assaultive Projective Identification and the Plundering of the Victim's Identity
Stanley Rosenman
What is interesting is how Rosenman describes the way the perpetrator exploits pathos to confuse and disarm the victim.
Rosenman made use of testimony from people who had survived parenting from adults traumatized by war and persecution, and from persons who had survived prison atrocity, torture and other forms of prolonged, grievous assault. (This is not good stuff to read within an hour or two of bedtime--learned that the hard way.) (My note - any trauma the parent suffered would count).
The stuff that jumped out at me is that many times perpetrators present a very pathetic wounded child aspect of themselves while simultaneously intruding on and damaging vulnerable targets. ((Though Rosenman does not say so, this wounded pathetic child aspect of the perp is probably flip side of the vibrant charming child aspect of the perp when he or she is being sunny and seductive.))
The pathos literally disarms us--both before we are assaulted--and it disarms us after we are assaulted, by shaming us into distrusting our anger and revulsion at being assaulted.
Roseman describes--the seductive pathos of the tormentor.
In using pathos,the perp sets it up so the victim gets shamed and conned into feeling parental and loyal to the wounded child in the perp--and in feeling protective of the wounded child in the perp, the victim is simultaneously conned into disowning his or her own violated innocence. In this scam, its the powerholder/perp who gets the compassion and the victim ends up shafted with disorientation, shame and self loathing.
Two, Rosenman notes that perps feel soiled by what they've been through and some get a temporary sense of renewal and invigoration by disrupting the innocent happiness of their target and witnessing the person succumb to the shock that the perp went through. Rosenman noted that survivors of atrocity may resent and envy their children at having a chance at happiness and may force the children to become privy to the parent's grim outlook on life--a kind of misery loves company dynamic. (my note - they HATE our happiness. My doctor, and the LGAT he tried to suck me into, try to persuade clients that they don't know just how miserable their lives are. Many alternative practitioners use this underlying unhappiness as the "hidden cause" for illness).
So the identity and emotional life of the perp get transferred into the targeted victim and takes over the victims inner life. IF you're a child, you dont feel free to explore life on your own terms. You feel your own energy and happiness are taking something away from your parents. Roseman noted that some perps get a sense of immortality, or at least a sense of mastery (the vampire) by taking over the inner lives of their victims and (to quote the abstract) 'have (the perp's) representation emerge as an internal regulator of the traumatized prey's functioning. '
December 6, 2008 11:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is really interesting. Is it at all possible that some women who are being interpreted as having been charmed have not actually fallen sway to the manipulations but simply are acting more "nice"? I feel through personal experience that women feel more pressure to be nice, smile, carry on conversation, and even flirt back out of politeness, but generally men feel more comfortable to get to the point and be curt if necessary (men don't get called a bitch for being to the point as women sadly do).
Perhaps also women interested in psychopathy haven't been "charmed" by it, but simply have an intellectual interest?
I just am not inclined to think that women are somehow more blinded to psychopath BS than men, especially considering that women seem to be more socially cognizant.
December 7, 2008 3:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Side note- actual con men are the easiest to con. You can't con an honest man- he knows when a deal is too good to be true. But a con man is greedy and lazy, and will believe the deals that are too good to be true.
La BellaDonna- the book I have says that men are diagnosed with psychopathy 5 times more frequently than women. So while the generalizations are still generalizations, they may be appropriate.
December 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To you and Fraise: I am obviously aware that women can be psychopaths, though the dynamic is a bit different. My question here is, assuming a male psychopath, why do they earn the label "charming?"
I'm working backwards from the "charming." Psychopaths repeatedly get called "charming" but never "repulsive and infuriating." Why? Ok, who are they charming to? Well, not me. Ok, how about men in general? My guess is not towards men either, though as I noted in the post, this is hardly a scientific assessment. Ok, but if it's true-- men aren't charmed, then why are psychopaths _called_ charming? Let's even grant that women are indeed the ones charmed. Why does "charming to women, but infuriating to men" get distilled down to "charming" only?
See my point? The bias in the description is to call them charming, which, at least for me, is not at all the case.
The second question them becomes, why are women charmed and men not charmed? Hmm. Maybe, indeed, women aren't really charmed? Maybe that's a complete myth- maybe they aren't charmed-- flattered, maybe, but no different than they would be with any other man, maybe the guy is simply a smooth talker, but not amazingly smooth. So maybe their great ability to charm is urban legend, maybe the charm is _perceived_ to be great in comparison to men's countertransference which is so violently negative.
Bringing me to my original hypothesis, that men call psychopaths charming (these criteria are mostly set out by men, e.g. Hare) because while they themselves are repulsed, they observe that women are not _as_ repulsed, and so they interpret that as, "that psychopath is completely manipulating that woman."
One other hypothesis: maybe men assume psychopaths have absolutely no humanity or goodness in them at all, such that when they appear "nice" or kind", especially to women, men assume that is always and everywhere an act-- no truth in it at all-- and thus is charm and manipulation.
Again, I don't have any idea of the answers to any of these questions, which is why I wrote this to get people's ideas.
December 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you want a subject sample of psychopath women, look for abused children. (Put the cheerful word 'tortured' 'beaten' 'starved' into the search engine.
Eliminate cases where one cant tell if a boyfriend or husband put her up to it.
Look for female cult leaders. They've been out there.
http://www.articlearchives.com/society-social/religion-spirituality-cults-sects/1035213-1.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1406690.htm
http://www.oztion.com.au/vshops/item.aspx?itemid=4350703&tid=
Psychoanalyst Daniel Shaw mentions one such case--he was formerly a disciple.
http://www.danielshawlcsw.com/narc_auth.htm
The article is about the problems of narcissism when it derails psychotherapy, but in the article, under the heading 'Malignant Narcissistic Authoritarianism' Shaw describes the female guru and even ways she persuaded devotees who were also mental health professionals to commit acts of professional malfeasance.
December 9, 2008 5:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you're asking whether priming will induce people to assert they know things they really don't then, Yes Virginia there really is a Santa Claus.
If you're asking whether a surprising number of people are really bad judges of character, contemplate [PALIN -*- 2012].
If you're asking whether some women crave the excitement of a douchebag then, yes. In the same way some men adore a slut--until they have to live with her.
A more interesting question is whether "charming" psychopaths are really psychopaths at all. The New Yorker article didn't cite any claims that women found all psychopaths "charming," just some of them. "Charming" and psychopathic sounds more like malignant narcissism than straight up psychopathy. Who's a more charming stranger: an accomplished narcissist or a psychopath?
December 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I will come back and catch up properly when I can; Alone/LP, thank you for your response; if the sole question was "Are Psychopaths Charming?" then my response, cautiously, would be, "The psychopaths whom I have encountered have exhibited "charming behaviour" when necessary." I would also add that I have met some truly charming people who have never exhibited psychopathic behaviour.
Lexi, thank you, I appreciate your comment! No, I don't have a blog of my own yet; I'm not in a position to maintain one. So I leave my eggs in the nests of others, for now. :)
December 10, 2008 11:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My question for "Alone" is, How do you *know* you've never found a psychopath charming? As one poster above mentioned, there can be a big difference between a psychopath engaged in chit-chat and one engaged in the obfuscation and BS that typifies the breed. In casual contexts, how do you know your psychodar is always functioning?
There's a broader idea I'd like to bring up. Despite the great amount of research done by Hare and others, I place little stock in their claim to know what goes on inside the mind of a psychopath, and I am skeptical about whether psychopathy is even a valid concept. You say that psychopaths "don't understand other people's emotions. As the article points out, they interpret emotions linguistically, not emotionally." I have never seen an adequate explanation for how anyone knows this. And I find it hard to believe that anyone could successfully manipulate another person without having a pretty sharp understanding of that person's emotions. I've never heard of a person with Asperger's being a great manipulator.
I'm not sure a type of person called a psychopath truly exists. And if it does, does it correspond to Cleckley's description of a psychopath, or to Hare's? Because - and I have never ever seen this mentioned, despite their names appearing side-by-side so often - their two concepts of a psychopath are vastly different. Furthermore, in most cases, "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms used without much regard for their actual meanings, whatever they might be, much like, say, "fascist". Hare is certainly not guilty of this, but I think other alleged mental health experts are, not just laymen.
(As a sidenote, despite the ruthless and sometimes criminal behavior of corporate CEOs, Hare’s recent fixation on psychopathy among business leaders seems to me to be the result of political bias with very little basis in reality.)
December 11, 2008 3:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Does anyone watch Dexter? Recently, he came across another sociopath.
In the context of Alone's question, I do find Dexter charming . . . but he's designed to be that way, and, I can also see how Miguel, the other sociopath on the show, can be charming, but isn't because we know too much about him, and their goals are different.
As for why sociopaths may get labeled charming, maybe because- if it is true that they don't have feelings, specifically shame or anxiety, it is easier for them to talk to women, than the average guy with approach anxiety, and because they aren't nervous, they sound a lot less like idiots, or say more interesting things and more equipped to listen to the other person (irrelevant as to whether or not it is for nefarious reasons). I've often been privy to guys calling guys jerks, or other denigrating words if the other guy is *more* successful with women than the name caller is. Additionally, it may be a combination of women's socializing, and rampant low self esteem that they find them charming, or attractive, or at least find their interest flattering.
As to why men might continue to label them charming, and drop the infuriating? Because maybe it keeps women socialized in a particular way. Alternatively, because if a man admits that he is infuriated by a competitor, he loses, he looks weaker. Just a guess.
December 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Perhaps the reason "Charming to women, infuriating to men" is distilled down to simply 'Charming', is that the fury they experience is simply a reaction off that charm. Instead of saying that in order for a psychopath to be considered 'charming' he must actively charm (i.e. successfully bring his marks under his influence), perhaps we should consider a different definition here.
We can say with some certainty that he is exuding an amount of charm or charisma. When that reaches a woman she may be charmed, but when that reaches a man he may be repulsed- but essentially both reactions are fed from the same thing: the charm the psychopath exudes. His main output being charm (in order to manipulate), he is then charming, even if his attempts invoke a different reaction in men.
December 13, 2008 5:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wasn't Charles Manson a sociopath/psychopath? He looks quite *charming* here . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afWwy5y1ekI if by charming I mean roflmao.
December 15, 2008 10:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"How do you con a con artist?"
I would go for a con that convinces him he's conning you. Having known a few people with strong "con artist" abilities, I would say they can be conned the same way you con anybody else, by giving them what they want - flattery, adoration, admiration, the inside scoop, the feeling of belonging, the feeling of pulling off a coup, the feeling of sticking it to someone they don't like, etc. A good con artist will easily be able to see the con being pulled on someone else, but since he's already convinced he's smarter than other people, his specialized knowledge doesn't necessarily protect him from a play on his sense of superiority.
A great example of this played out very publicly in Fairbanks, Alaska, in the late 80s/early 90s. A woman who had already been convicted of embezzlement and mail fraud started a travel agency, World Plus, Inc., that specialized in "trading" frequent flyer miles. She managed to bring in hundreds of investors and something like $40 million in loot, all from people who believed they were investing in a business with an avowedly dishonest business plan, since the frequent flyer miles were non-transferable per the airlines that issued them, and everybody knew it.
I imagine she played on every bad meal an "investor" had ever been fed on an airline, every delayed flight, every resentment of "big corporations" or "unfair rules," etc., along with the promises of extraordinary returns.
Some people invested their life savings and convinced their families and friends to do it too. The suckers included judges, lawyers, successful businessmen, real estate brokers, car salesmen. Having been reeled in with the promise of conning airlines out of their money, the suckers were surprised - stunned - to end up the victims of a con themselves.
I don't believe honesty is an absolute defense against every con, but it would have been against this one.
January 3, 2009 3:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
We had the opportunity to watch a psychopath in action when we got a new regional CEO this summer. It was interesting to see how our staff regarded this guy- we'd all leave meetings with wholly different evaluations of what was said. Eventually, I figured observed that it was the soothing tone that made the difference. People were reacting to how the charm and charisma made them feel rather than the words that were said. Try transcribing meetings? Like reading stereo instructions. Our company is now involved in a lawsuit and expecting to close our doors any day now.
For some reason, from the first meeting, I felt uncomfortable with the guy and found him instinctively revolting.
February 1, 2009 8:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm late here, but I believe some of your commenters are thinking too hard. I invite those here to step back from their positions of being intelligent people who, think about semantics, read the New Yorker, and even get all spun up a gender disparity in the reporting of "Who's Who of Whackjobs," and think like Jane sixpack.
Jane has had a series of relationships with men, as she's not a lesbian. Yet. She always feels that "they just don't listen to me," as Jane wants to talk about her feelings and their relationships. Her man, as men do, either just wants to fix things and gets annoyed when she keeps blathering on about how Sally is such a bitch at work when they provided a perfectly reasonable solution, or just kind of looks stunned and grunts in affirmative whenever his brain processes that she may be asking a question. This guy, of course, is a perfectly good guy, just really low on the communication skill ladder.
Of course, if you're talking communication in general, men are like trebuchets. Women are MOABS. Men do, women talk (then do). If you want to argue with me on this I will respond that you have been spending too much time at Starbucks and need to put down your half-caff double non-fat whip soy latte, and hang out at more sports bars with men who drink Pabst unironically.
Anyhow, Jane breaks up with Mr. Neanderthal because he doesn't understand her and she doesn't speak ESPN, and meets Jack. Jack is a sociopath. Sociopaths are walking bait. They have carefully constructed themselves, much like a deep sea lantern fish, to float tasty looking phalanges around them in the social water.
Jane is initially attracted to Jack because he displays all the trappings of a desirable mate. Decent clothes (borrowed), nice car (about to be repossessed), so much fun at the party (isn't shy because he literally has no shame). But then, then...
He talks to her. He looks in her eyes, he expresses everything she needs to hear in terms she understands. He modulates his voice to emulate her speech patterns, as they talk he will create a backstory out of thin air that will reflect what he perceives she wants in a man. She is impressed, she thinks she's never found someone so in touch, so able to communicate with her. They finish each other's sentances (he sets it up that way) he always knows what she's thinking (just like a cold reading "psychic"). He must be her soul mate. And because she's a women, and has been socialized to be nice, and will be afraid to be thought of as a "bitch" if she questions him too closely, will accept his slightly wrong excuses for the sort of disturbing and off things she notices about him. Because, really, who is she to judge?
Jack knows this and uses the hell out of it. Whenever things get too close to becoming inconvenient for him, he trots out something that plays to her guilts. He knows she has these conscience and feelings things, and they're oh so exploitable.
Of course, everything he's doing is a farce. Women have a soft spot for language and most people in general don't understand their own susceptibility to cold reading. The sociopath doesn't care, its just a tool. A smart sociopath has determines that certain techniques are successful, and will use them until proven otherwise. He has no social conscience holding him back. The lantern fish has no fondness or particular love for its little dangley bits, it just catches dinner. It would be just as happy with something that looks like a tiny Prada handbag if it gets the job done.
So women find sociopaths charming (the good ones at least) because the tools they have available in building their bait lines are well suited to reel in women. My theory is that men find the sociopaths that have developed bait geared to women annoying and transparent because the sociopath has not developed bait for men yet. You don't fly fish and expect to catch buffalo. Further, you would probably not notice sociopaths trolling for men so immediately, as you would find their bait at least initially tasty and acceptable.
February 10, 2009 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Let's turn this around a bit. Perhaps it's not that the women are seeing something good in the psychopaths that men don't see, but rather, that psychopaths are able to tell who's going to fall for their bullshit and who isn't. Being people who are going to take the path of least resistance to get what they want, they zero in on naivete and weakness where you and I would step back and cut someone a break.
Sure, there are plenty of smart women who get seduced by psychopaths (and, I would wager, plenty of smart men who've been taken to the cleaners by psychopathic women). But the point is, when we look at these smart victims, WE don't see their potential to be a victim and WE don't understand how they could have been a victim because WE aren't looking for victims. Psychopaths ARE looking for victims. Thus, I think it's not that the victim sees something we don't, but that the psychopath sees something we don't.
Last night I was browsing through Gilmore's book, Manson, and a phrase from one of Charles Manson's ex-followers jumped out at me. This person pointed out that Manson himself didn't like to get his hands dirty by murdering people personally, but he knew who WOULD be willing to get violent - he could smell it on other people, "like a disease." Psychopaths can smell that in their victims. We can't. Thus, they target who they think they can con, and we're left scratching our heads about how such smart people fell for such obvious lies.
April 6, 2009 12:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hello All,
I recently divorced my psychopathic/narcissistic (I believe they are the same disorder!)husband of 10-years and I thank God everyday for giving me insight into his disturbing behaviours!
My ex-husband was very charming and intelligent and the moment I said "I Do" there was a shift in the way that he treated me and in hindsight I should have seen the red flags but didn't because he was adept at the art of deception! Only his needs were considered important and my children and I were just props because these people do not like to live their own lives, they live them through other people by manipulating them into doing their dirty work! They have no shame and don't give a dam about you because you are considered less than they are! My ex-husbands family are all the same -in fact I believe that both his Mom & Dad are the very same as he is inside. They came to Canada from Germany and were definately Hitler's children!
It took me my whole marriage to get inside this guys head to see what the hell was going on! And in the end, I mentally turned the tables by beating him at his own game! My children and I got out just in time - my life has been forever changed by this guy for I don't believe that I will ever date or marry again!
I'd really like to meet Dr.Robert Hare because his research is what finally put a name to what I was experiencing and likely saved my life!
God bless Dr. Hare!
April 18, 2009 7:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think you might not be too far off with this, though I don't think it is as simple as a difference between women and men. Maybe closer to the mark would be a division based on oxytocin release. How well to psychopaths do with people who don't very readily bond with others hormonally?
July 23, 2009 4:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I work with socio pathic women all the time. I always know because of the stories they tell about how they have treated thier children and how thier children behave. I see generations of women who loose children after children to the system. I find they always have excuses and never cry real tears. Even a psychotic women who beat her child almost to death was aware she needed to stop having children and should have given them up for odoption, but she also was unable to cry or feel deep remorse. Often, it is a scale- some are 10 socio paths and some are slippery 4 or 5's.
As for men, I have great instinks and have always liked sensative, sweet men who where raised well. I have always interviewed to find out about thier family. I am told i have a very strong male side- so I have great bullshit detection, logic, and am evidence based. Plus, i don't have the hard on getting in the way. Poor horny guys and love starved women. I'm not really your "i'll save you, love you, help you " kinda person. But, I know about female therapists marrying so many prisoners, they try not to hire female therapists in the prison system. But, byer beware, not all therapists are healthy-by far.
Comments