I watched the documentary I, Psychopath just now and I found it fascinating. It featured Sam Vaknin, a man who’d been convicted of securities fraud, and is a confessed narcissist who’s written several papers on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. His work on NPD has apparently been circulating around the internet for several years now. Although Vaknin was very aware of his psychopathic tendencies, I got the impression that he honestly believed he was not truly a psychopath, which was why he agreed to participate in the documentary. He was in for a bit of a surprise. He submitted himself to a battery of tests conducted by psychologists, including a brain scan and the famous Psychopathic Checklist Revised. His score on the PCL-R was 18, which is high when compared to the US population. The tests were conclusive: Vaknin was a psychopath.
One of the things that fascinated me about the documentary were the ways in which he and I were alike. For instance, I share Vaknin’s ability to be charming, even gregarious, when it suits me to do so. Even though he was surprised when he found out he scored so highly on the PCL-R, he was nevertheless highly self aware of his antisocial tendencies and so am I. This demonstrates why it’s a myth to believe that those of us on this side of the personality spectrum couldn’t possibly know what we are. On a related point, like me, Vaknin knew precisely what he was doing when he manipulated others, which was exemplified when he related the uses and effects of targeted bullying. Although I’m not a fan of bullies, the way he dissected what he called the “secret of bullying” was interesting in and of itself. Vaknin has been married for eleven years. He has never physically abused his wife. He admits that he does not feel for her what she feels for him, but nevertheless, he gives her what he can, even though she loses in the deal. I’m like this with my own family and friends. I know I may not feel for them the depth of feeling they have for me, but I do what I can. Finally, Vaknin mentions that he changes jobs every few years. I also like to plan my future in two year intervals. Two years seems a pretty decent time frame for me to plan some and to live some, so to speak.
Of course we differ in important ways, but the similarities surprised me. I suppose that the difference between sociopath and psychopath is not as profound as I might have once assumed. Maybe it’s merely a difference in degree rather than kind. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter anyway; I am who I am. Still, the film is interesting. Check it out.
One of the things that fascinated me about the documentary were the ways in which he and I were alike. For instance, I share Vaknin’s ability to be charming, even gregarious, when it suits me to do so. Even though he was surprised when he found out he scored so highly on the PCL-R, he was nevertheless highly self aware of his antisocial tendencies and so am I. This demonstrates why it’s a myth to believe that those of us on this side of the personality spectrum couldn’t possibly know what we are. On a related point, like me, Vaknin knew precisely what he was doing when he manipulated others, which was exemplified when he related the uses and effects of targeted bullying. Although I’m not a fan of bullies, the way he dissected what he called the “secret of bullying” was interesting in and of itself. Vaknin has been married for eleven years. He has never physically abused his wife. He admits that he does not feel for her what she feels for him, but nevertheless, he gives her what he can, even though she loses in the deal. I’m like this with my own family and friends. I know I may not feel for them the depth of feeling they have for me, but I do what I can. Finally, Vaknin mentions that he changes jobs every few years. I also like to plan my future in two year intervals. Two years seems a pretty decent time frame for me to plan some and to live some, so to speak.
Of course we differ in important ways, but the similarities surprised me. I suppose that the difference between sociopath and psychopath is not as profound as I might have once assumed. Maybe it’s merely a difference in degree rather than kind. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter anyway; I am who I am. Still, the film is interesting. Check it out.
NPD? No, he says whatever he likes on the less scientific "Malignant Narcissism".
ReplyDeletethanks for recommending this video, which was worth watching. You are an idiot for pretending you are a psychopath, because in so doing you give legitimacy to actual psychopaths out there who are abusing real people and messing up real lives. I hope you get your comeuppance.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“You are an idiot for pretending you are a psychopath…"
ReplyDeleteUm, anon #2, I read the post several times and nowhere did ME suggest that he was himself a psychopath, merely that he had some characteristics in common with the Sam Vaknin person. In fact, I don’t think ME has ever said he was a psychopath.
“…because in so doing you give legitimacy to actual psychopaths out there who are abusing real people and messing up real lives.”
‘Real’ people? ‘Real’ lives? As opposed to what, pretend people living pretend lives? Like zombies, for instance? (Went to see “Zombieland” btw and I thoroughly enjoyed it!) And how does one give ‘legitimacy’ to a psychopath anyway?
“I hope you get your comeuppance.”
Plowing through unproductive comments like yours is comeuppance enough I imagine. It certainly is for me.
Mr. Insane wrote, “If you call yourself one just because...then yes...you are an idiot!”
I agree. Why would anyone want to call him or herself a psychopath just because? Or a sociopath, for that matter? Where’s the gain in saddling one’s self with a label that is ostensibly meant to be pejorative unless it explains certain traits? If it isn't helpful and explanatory, why bother? I know people do it and technically I know why they do it. I just don’t grok it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete'Real' people? ‘Real’ lives? As opposed to what, pretend people living pretend lives? Like zombies, for instance? (Went to see “Zombieland” btw and I thoroughly enjoyed it!) And how does one give ‘legitimacy’ to a psychopath anyway?
ReplyDelete“I hope you get your comeuppance.”
Plowing through unproductive comments like yours is comeuppance enough I imagine. It certainly is for me.
Lol. This is always a good place for a laugh or two. Thanks Daniel.
“I hope you get your comeuppance.”
ReplyDeleteAh, crap. Now I'm going to be using the word 'comeuppance' all the damn time...why do I love the obscure-grumpy-old-man words?
Vaknin's been around FOREVER and the psych community has loathed him for even longer. He's the Hannah Montana to our Eric Clapton. Maybe it was 10 years ago or more when I read his site and all the crap that he does--it took me ten minutes to go...wait a minute...and then another probably 8 hours to confidently say...sociopath. It's brilliant. People think that they're getting the inside scoop from the quack on the love fraud guy that done them wrong. The see him like a spy, spilling on the N secrets so they don't fall for all those evil evil NPD games. He gives a comprehensive (if not clinical) account of a lot of the NPD's psych mechanisms that is admittedly accurate and insightful. Especially for someone who calls himelf Dr. Vaknik...and um, dropped out of community college.
But Narcissists don't play like that. He knows what he is, but won't take off the mask and kill that money making machine! As long as there's a match.com, there are women to be duped ... by MAN4U123 and Dr. V to pick up the sloppy seconds.
I just wish I had thought of it first.
“I suppose that the difference between sociopath and psychopath is not as profound as I might have once assumed. Maybe it’s merely a difference in degree rather than kind.”
ReplyDeleteFor now they are used as off-the-books diagnosis and aren't recognized or defined yet by all the big psych associations. People just adopt the one of many set of criteria out there, all equally accepted (and unaccepted). Those that reference "psychopathic personality disorder" are misleading you or ignorant that this is a legal term only with no clinical value.
I do get upset when I hear on this site of those 'diagnosed' as a sociopath by their therapist. Talk therapy is so full of bs to begin with, that using a bs diagnosis should be expected, I guess. I just wonder if they do it to passive-aggressively try and hurt a patient that they don't like. I can't think of a legit reason to offer a vague diagnosis - HMOs do NOT cover 'sociopath'.
‘Real’ people? ‘Real’ lives? As opposed to what, pretend people living pretend lives?
ReplyDeleteHaha. I that was the first thing that came to my mind, too. Damn, literal mind.
But there's also the part of me that is an asshole and sometimes reminds people that writing and speaking is a form of communication and not just a performance of endless platitudes and quirky colloquialisms. 'Cause sometimes they forget.
interesting.
ReplyDeleteMr. Insane wrote, “If you call yourself one just because...then yes...you are an idiot!”
ReplyDeleteDaniel wrote: "I agree. Why would anyone want to call him or herself a psychopath just because? Or a sociopath, for that matter? Where’s the gain in saddling one’s self with a label that is ostensibly meant to be pejorative unless it explains certain traits? If it isn't helpful and explanatory, why bother? I know people do it and technically I know why they do it. I just don’t grok it."
You're obviously the grumpy old man if you don't grok what's going on Daniel. If Vampires are evil blood suckers why do so many people go round dressing like them and fantasising about being one (recent films like Twilight for e.g.)
Let me spell it out for you Daniel. The author of this site and some of the commenters imagine it to be glamourous, sexy, wild, different. It makes them feel more interesting as individuals.
Now, does this mean that none of them are in fact psychopathic? No, I'd say there's about the same chance a given individual here vamping up the psycho in himself is actually psycho, as there is in the general population. About 1%.
I noticed a lot of banal comments about my use of the world 'real'. But yes, *real* psychos at root are simply, and nothing other than, unpleasant nasty people. They don't hang out on sites like this giving useful advice to people who 'in a relationship with someone [increasingly shrill voice] who doesn't seem to love me and might be a bit psycho (or maybe is just using and abusing him/her in the bog standard way that is normal and natural for all humans?
).
Just one small thing.
ReplyDeleteIn I, Psychopath Sam Vaknin was diagnosed with PCL-SV, a shorter version of PCL-R, with the maximum score of 24, unlike the long version's 40. Like it was said by Dr. Robert D. Hare its pretty high 18(of 24).
Mr Insane wrote: If anon#2 had read the post correctly, it would have been clear that ME wasn't saying he was a psychopath, just noting that similarities existed between the two.
ReplyDeleteMr Insane, there is no substantial difference that I know of, between 'psychopath' and 'sociopath'. I believe the author of this site clearly vamps himself up as a sociopath, rubber fangs and red contact lenses and all.
love #anon2 (or whatever)
Tis true anon #2, I am a grumpy old man. Have been since I was 8. That was around the age I consciously noticed other people pretending to be something they weren’t to appear interesting to other people. I thought it was ridiculous then and continue to think so now. Which, btw, was kinda of the point I was making with my previous comment. While it was real sweet of you to ‘spell it out’ for me, I did say that I know why people take on labels like sociopath. I just said I didn’t grok it, which to me means that I don’t emotionally get it, I don’t personally see the appeal, I don’t grasp it intuitively, etc. That’s the polite way of saying that I think it’s absurd to go around anywhere saying you are -fill in the blank- to get other people to think -fill in the blank- about you.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of banal, I’ve noticed that invariably commenters come on here and say things like, “none of you are -fill in the blank- and you’re all full of shit”. Which is fine if that’s how you like to kill time. But this is another one of those social phenomena that I don’t grok. Why on earth would you care one way or the other if every single person who comments on this blog along with the blogger himself is seriously delusional? What do you gain? Satisfaction? A sense of false superiority, because really, how hard is it to prove yourself superior to a bunch of deluded psycho wannabe’s? Or are you just bored? The other thing that makes this type of comment banal and useless to the reader is the notion that you know what “real psychos” would and would not do. Do you? Really? Based on what, your own firsthand experience? Are you, dear anon #2, a psychopath? If you are, why would you believe that your personal experience must define all psychopaths experience? If not, are you a mental health professional? Or have you done extensive research in this subject that makes you a kind of armchair expert? Or, heaven help us, are you one of those love fraud chics who’s been oh so hurt by a douchey-douche bag and now you want to spread the good word about douche bags to help other silly chics?
Why the longish response? Because I truly wonder what people like you gain by leaving comments like this. I have for a while. I suppose the odds are good that I won’t get a ‘real’, thoughtful answer. After all, you wouldn’t have said the things you did if you were thoughtful or ‘real’. But hey, you never know…
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSarah said, "He's the Hannah Montana to our Eric Clapton."
ReplyDeleteLMAO!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr Insane and Daniel,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I didn't expect there to be such deepness and thoughtfulness here...so I am forwith dropping the pointless elements and apologising for jumping in without looking. However, if you are still happy to go on, I will think about it and come back to the [non bickering / substantial] aspects of what you have said. In the mean time I would briefly mention the two planks I do stick by. Firstly, whether intuitively, in terms of symmetry/visualisation, whatever, it just "doesn't fit" that sociopaths would hang out on a site like this. There are more convincing explanations for this sort of behaviour, which don't have to involve dismissing the similarities people have found between sociopathic traits and what they have observed in themselves.
Also, I don't see there are significant differences between 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' on the grounds that, strictly speaking neither are used correctly anyway, but historically both have been used interchangeably. Perhaps I'm wrong, please tell me if that is so, but the mere fact two words exist is not in of itself evidence of two distinct concepts.
luv #anon2
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWWSD: What would a sociopath do? If everyone answered that question, just as a kind of make shift thought experiment, they’d probably find it revealing. At the very least, the answer would reveal what people really thought about sociopaths, and depending on the person answering the question, what they think about human ‘evil’. But bringing this back to the subject, answering that question would also reveal potential stereotypes the person believes about others who happen to not have much of a conscience. The real question is why wouldn’t a sociopath post comments on a blog, or write a blog like this for matter?
ReplyDeleteTo make my point more graphic, so to speak, I could reword one of your earlier comments to say this: “You are an idiot for pretending you are a white person, because in so doing you give legitimacy to actual white people out there who are abusing real people and messing up real lives.” See what I mean? Now before anyone goes there, I know we’re talking about two different subtypes, ethnic versus a personality variant, so they’re not equivalent for a couple of reasons. I get that. By using a racial grouping, I am merely trying to demonstrate the point that just as it is absurd to imply that ALL white people would do X, Y, Z and that if you don’t do X, Y, Z, then you aren’t white, it is equally absurd to make the same kind of assumption for people who fit into a particular type of personality grouping. I mean, we could say the same thing about introverts ('real' introverts would never talk to people!) or artists ('real' artists would never have a day job!) or accountants ('real' accountants would never sing in a rock band on the weekends!) and so on.
“There are more convincing explanations for this sort of behavior...”
Ok. Why would those explanations be more convincing? What standard are you using to judge what is and is not convincing, and why should that standard be logically binding on others, like me for instance?
“Also, I don't see there are significant differences between 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' on the grounds that, strictly speaking neither are used correctly anyway, but historically both have been used interchangeably.”
These terms are notoriously muddled and hard to define because they mean slightly different things to too many people. Even Hare’s work isn’t universally accepted and neither term is an ‘official’ medical diagnosis, as Sarah’s comment above points out.
“the mere fact two words exist is not in of itself evidence of two distinct concepts.”
True; but that doesn’t mean that they must be interchangeable either.
“I didn't expect there to be such deepness and thoughtfulness here...”
That’s one of those stereotypes, isn’t it? Sociopaths can’t be thoughtful or insightful and they certainly don’t blog. They’re too busy maiming and killing. So naturally, the commenters here are wannabes… who must also be incapable of depth and thoughtfulness because deep and thoughtful people wouldn’t be wannabe’s, would they? You can see the problem with this line of thinking, right?
We all live and we all learn. Well, it would be nice if that were true. Some folk come here to argue for arguments sake. Some like to troll. My main reason for being here is learning. If you have something to say that is interesting or insightful or useful, I’ll take it. I’d rather be clear than right. But that’s just me.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI think you have trouble understanding why people do and say the things they do because you mistakenly believe your own reasons have any merit. There's no concrete reason to post on a site like this. We're all doing it for some kind of satisfaction, and when you break it down, what's the difference between my flavor of satisfaction and yours? What's the real difference, aside from personal taste and individual needs? There isn't one.
I post here for quite a few different reasons. I'm extremely interested in the subject matter, and yeah, I do get a lot of pleasure out of pointing out logical inconsistencies. It does make me feel smarter, and well, it's just plain fun, even when I talk myself into a corner. Now, you might think that's pretty pointless, but what do you chase in life? Whatever it is, it boils down to one thing: satisfaction. Somehow, in some way, you hope to acquire a bit of it through your interaction with this site. Do the details of how you hope to find it really, ultimately matter? I don't think so.
There's nothing "concrete" about anything ANYONE here says. If you think there is, you're an idiot, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. You're not making money off of this site. You're not doing anything productive, just satisfying an intellectual need, whether it's a need to feel superior, to identify with a group, to feel like you're "honing your skills", or just to have some fun.
There is one central focus in the comments on this site though: Narcissistic self-gratification.
When's the last time anyone here posted anything useful?
When's the last time someone here wasn't trying to "enlighten" somebody else?
Or break someone down?
When's the last time ANY comment here lead to anything even remotely productive?
Never.
N-E-V-E-R
M.E. plays on that. M.E. has an agenda. He's the only one here with a purpose. You folks are his purpose. I'm his purpose.
He says, "Come be my sheep, and you'll prove yourselves wolves."
The overwhelming majority reply with a hearty, "Baaaah baaaaaaah!"
Baah some more, guys. Baaah for M.E. Baaaaaah your hearts out.
I'm sure he falls asleep at night counting your comments.
Peter Pan said, “Daniel… baaah, baaah, baaah.”
ReplyDeleteWow. Someone’s off his meds today I see…
As always PP, you know I respond sensibly when you talk sensibly. So since you’re on one of your nonsensical rant modes (for this thread anyway), I won’t give your comment any more attention than it deserves, which as you well know, is not much. I imagine you’ll be deleting it shortly anyway, which is just as well.
Anyway, bon apatite!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how you people completely miss real information as long as it's got an offensive spin to it. So rational.
ReplyDelete"Sir, I see a post!"
-"Is it offensive?"
"Yes, yes it is."
-"Quick! Close all the blinds! Nobody is allowed to look!"
"But sir, I think it might have a real po..."
-"DID YOU NOT HEAR ME?! SHUT THE GOD DAMN FUCKING BLINDS! THE EGO CANNOT HANDLE THIS!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's just another one of those offensive bits I like to add to my posts. :)
ReplyDeleteYou people... it's so inflammatory. Lumping people together, y'know. Especially those who fancy themselves independent thinkers.
Nah, I meant the many folks here who can't handle anything that isn't neutral or in suck-up format.
You can get most people here to agree with anything you say if you rephrase it in a way that's sympathetic to their ego. You can say the exact same thing two different ways, and suddenly they're all for it.
ReplyDeleteOr you can say something inflammatory and they'll argue against it with all their might, then regurgitate the same shit later on in comments to each other. I always get a kick out of it. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShhh. Don't let them hear you saying they're deficient in any way, shape, or form. They'll rape you in your sleep.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was one of M.E.'s better finds. It's a shame the comments went to shit so quickly.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the doc, but it seemed to me that the film maker was intellectually dishonest: his victimization or bullying by the psychopath seemed contrived to extend the dramatic arc of his film.
Anon above is somewhat correct. The level of discourse on this site get driven down by the kids playing sociopath.
Do the diagnostic criteria for sociopathy/pschopathy even 'mean' anything at this point? They were largely discarded in favor of APD which is contingent on criminality.
I enjoy the site, I don't know if I would ever be diagnosis with anything. But much like the fella in the movie, I know I'm not normal so I keep reading.
The level of discourse on this site get driven down by the kids playing sociopath.
ReplyDeleteThen again, that seems to be price we pay to have any kind of discussion on any internet forum/comments section. Inevitably, someone or several someones will come along and decide that it’s ‘play time’ so they disrupt a perfectly decent dialogue with inanity. Ah well, what would the world be like without children masquerading as adults?
I'm late to the game and stopped reading and started skimming right after everyone seemed to developed an unhealthy attachment to the word grok so...I may be a little to late and lots irrelevant but:
ReplyDeleteYou have to understand that a diagnosis of a mental disease in psychology isn't like a diagnosis given by physician. A doctor would never say, "Your symptoms look like cancer, so lets just say it's cancer and talk about how that makes you feel." We know exactly what cancer is, we test for it, and if it's found we call it "cancer", so there is no confusion...buddy, you have cancer. Psychological diseases are more like symptoms found in groups of people and focus on the impact of the symptoms, not the forensics. It's the easiest way to manage and classify a 'soft science', it's not the gospel.
All clinical standards aside, I've always thought of some conditions beginning with a hard-wire that is different. But there are still other genetic and environmental factors that interupt, shape and change how it manifests.
Anecdotally, I've found the "Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" analogy by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman of roles inherited and adopted a down to earth way of thinking. It's intuitive but basically, the sheep are the calm, productive creatures, their existence as a sheep is intrinsic to a herd, and there nature is attached to the denial that the day of the wolf will never arrive. Then there are the wolves they lie and wait and hunt, waiting for the day to attack. Then there are the sheepdogs, who is hated by both the sheep and the wolf, and thereby defines himself by the value of his contribution, living everyday as the day the wolf will come.
My brother is a Marine and he sent me some of the Col.'s essays some years ago. They are unapologetically patriotic and come from a place of explaining the role of the sheep dog, who he sees himself as, but there's a simple wisdom if you read the entire essays on how each role has a place in the world, but the qualities that define this value are the very ones that separate them, often in conflict.
He mentions a sociopath as the wolf. Violent with no empathy. He's a sheep dog and doesn't like the wolf, so he doesn't spend that much time on him..but:
Once I read all of his essays that expand or illustrate the philosophy behind the analogy, I began to see that he is a sociopath, born or chosen to a different role. He explains the necessity of killing and torture, to defend the herd. And strangly, with unintential irony, paints the picture of his role as the sheepdog that resemble the cliche of the 'lone wolf'. He is seen as the antagonist to both the wolf and the sheep, yet doesn't want thier acceptance. He takes pride in being the only one who watches both the wolf and the sheep, and sees his talent as "the ability to survive". And even he acknowledges that maybe your born fit for one role, but most can choose - whether it be taking on a role for a moment or for a lifetime. And on a certain level I think he recognizes this, as he repeats the statement frequently "I choose to be a sheepdog".
So, I think wolf = sociopath is only the charactuer for anyone who is violent without empathy. But the reality is, a sociopath can be a wolf, a sheepdog or a sheep. There's more to who we are than one hard wired cognitive difference, just as there's always more to a diagnosis than a set of symptoms.
Harry, as to:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the doc, but it seemed to me that the film maker was intellectually dishonest: his victimization or bullying by the psychopath seemed contrived to extend the dramatic arc of his film,
I can see that, but I think it wasn't intellectually dishonest, because to me the contrivance wasn't driven by the film maker. It was included because at those moments, the inauthenticity and awkwardness of trying too hard was coming from the Doc. He was desperately trying to prove himself a Narcissist, it was if he prepared monologues and conversations that allowed him to display classic N behavior. There was a lot of scrambling and weirdness to the doc, and I think the film maker just knew that it meant something, but wasn't really sure exactly what that was. And presented it with whatever context he could.
It's funny how perceptions can be so different. It was quite clear to me the psychopath in the documentary had been subjecting the documentary maker to abuse. You only had to look into the maker's eyes on the train. But on top of that there is the way in which the documentary itself [in many but not all senses] diminishes toward the end.
ReplyDeleteluv #anon2
Sarah:
ReplyDeleteI’m reading an article by Dave Grossman this morning to pass the time. It’s interesting. I’d heard of him and seen his book in bookstores, but I always passed on reading his stuff.
Given your background, what is your definition of sociopath and/or psychopath?