My sister told me that I should listen to the most recent episode of This American Life.
It's really interesting, particularly for people who often hear that they are unloveable, because the show really questions what it really means to love. The first half of the show is about a family who adopts a Romanian orphan. The mother believed strongly that people should do things that they're capable of, and she felt capable of adopting a child, even one with special needs. The son, Daniel, was ok for the first 6 months, then rapidly deteriorated when it finally became clear to him that his birth parents had abandoned him to spend his first 7 years living in a crib, and he misdirected his hatred to his adoptive parents.
Daniel was diagnosed with attachment disorder, characterized by a lack of empathy and lack of conscience. Daniel threatened his parents several times, including holding a knife to his mother's throat. His mom stopped teaching him how to read because, in an era of Columbine, she worried that he would independently research ways to hurt her or others. When asked how she could love someone who is homicidal, she responded "Because he was my son! I mean you have to love him or else there's no way out of it. . . . I don't think I ever questioned my love." His mom stayed with him even after the dad had to hire a bodyguard to protect the mom from the son's outbursts, even when an acquaintance of hers and a friend and mentor of Daniel's, also diagnosed with attachment disorder, committed cold-blooded murder.
Daniel started attachment therapy, including a period of 8 weeks in which he could not be more than three feet away from his mother. After that, he ceased to be violent but still stole. He then began "holding therapy", where for 20 minutes a night his parents would cradle their thirteen year old hulk of a son in their laps and feed him ice cream while looking in their eyes and trying to bond. Daniel began to transform, began to help around the house, made friends, and had his old furniture moved back into his room (previously removed as a throwing hazard). His parents raised him to be Jewish, hoping that the religious instruction would help him acquire something of a conscience. After years of being a very poor divinity student, to the extent that he would frequently be taken away from the temple in police cars, he was finally given an award for best student in his confirmation class. In his speech he thanks his parents, saying that he loved them very much. His mom says that it was the most spectacular moment of her life.
Despite all of this, his mother still thinks that it is not possible to teach love. "I don't think the goal was ever love, the goal was attachment . . . I think you can work really hard to create an environment where you can form attachment. You want to create these situations where it's more advantageous for them to attach than to keep doing things their own way and being in their own world, isolated." When asked if she feels loved by Daniel, "Yeah, I feel love . . . I don't think he wants to hurt me, I don't worry about that at all." Although this is not the type of "love" that most people think of as love, the narrator imagines that the mother's pragmatism is exactly what has made her so successful:
"If you're the kind of person who actually needs love, really needs love, chances are you're not the kind of person that's going to have the wherewithal to create it. Creating love is not for the soft and sentimental among us. Love is a tough business."
I liked the idea that a practical approach can really be effective in instilling a sense of attachment (love?) in someone who otherwise seemed incapable of attachment. You can't force someone to love you, but you can indirectly influence them, incentivize them to want to attach. I feel like there are a lot of interesting pieces of advice for parents of a sociopath.
Other interesting parts include the first 5-10 minute discussion about how it used to be a Truth in psychology that parental love was unnecessary and even unhealthy for children. It makes you realize how young and flawed a "science" psychology is.
It's really interesting, particularly for people who often hear that they are unloveable, because the show really questions what it really means to love. The first half of the show is about a family who adopts a Romanian orphan. The mother believed strongly that people should do things that they're capable of, and she felt capable of adopting a child, even one with special needs. The son, Daniel, was ok for the first 6 months, then rapidly deteriorated when it finally became clear to him that his birth parents had abandoned him to spend his first 7 years living in a crib, and he misdirected his hatred to his adoptive parents.
Daniel was diagnosed with attachment disorder, characterized by a lack of empathy and lack of conscience. Daniel threatened his parents several times, including holding a knife to his mother's throat. His mom stopped teaching him how to read because, in an era of Columbine, she worried that he would independently research ways to hurt her or others. When asked how she could love someone who is homicidal, she responded "Because he was my son! I mean you have to love him or else there's no way out of it. . . . I don't think I ever questioned my love." His mom stayed with him even after the dad had to hire a bodyguard to protect the mom from the son's outbursts, even when an acquaintance of hers and a friend and mentor of Daniel's, also diagnosed with attachment disorder, committed cold-blooded murder.
Daniel started attachment therapy, including a period of 8 weeks in which he could not be more than three feet away from his mother. After that, he ceased to be violent but still stole. He then began "holding therapy", where for 20 minutes a night his parents would cradle their thirteen year old hulk of a son in their laps and feed him ice cream while looking in their eyes and trying to bond. Daniel began to transform, began to help around the house, made friends, and had his old furniture moved back into his room (previously removed as a throwing hazard). His parents raised him to be Jewish, hoping that the religious instruction would help him acquire something of a conscience. After years of being a very poor divinity student, to the extent that he would frequently be taken away from the temple in police cars, he was finally given an award for best student in his confirmation class. In his speech he thanks his parents, saying that he loved them very much. His mom says that it was the most spectacular moment of her life.
Despite all of this, his mother still thinks that it is not possible to teach love. "I don't think the goal was ever love, the goal was attachment . . . I think you can work really hard to create an environment where you can form attachment. You want to create these situations where it's more advantageous for them to attach than to keep doing things their own way and being in their own world, isolated." When asked if she feels loved by Daniel, "Yeah, I feel love . . . I don't think he wants to hurt me, I don't worry about that at all." Although this is not the type of "love" that most people think of as love, the narrator imagines that the mother's pragmatism is exactly what has made her so successful:
"If you're the kind of person who actually needs love, really needs love, chances are you're not the kind of person that's going to have the wherewithal to create it. Creating love is not for the soft and sentimental among us. Love is a tough business."
I liked the idea that a practical approach can really be effective in instilling a sense of attachment (love?) in someone who otherwise seemed incapable of attachment. You can't force someone to love you, but you can indirectly influence them, incentivize them to want to attach. I feel like there are a lot of interesting pieces of advice for parents of a sociopath.
Other interesting parts include the first 5-10 minute discussion about how it used to be a Truth in psychology that parental love was unnecessary and even unhealthy for children. It makes you realize how young and flawed a "science" psychology is.
Spare the rod, spoil the child? Reason # 500 why I am an ex-catholic.
ReplyDeleteAs the Bible tells us: "He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24) and "Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell."
'A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back.'
DeleteGotta love this guy.
"Spare the rod...": In some ways, I agree. However, in Daniel's case this would've been a disastrous approach. Then again, the whole of *that book* has led to more suffering than peace, more hatred than love.
DeleteI agree. My philosophy to all is : "be kind."
Delete@Machavellianempath
ReplyDeleteHi Mach, I'm addressing this question to you because I appreciate your attempts to understand this condition. Do you ever visit sites such as Psychopathfree.com? I skip from there to here and I'm torn. There, you are told No Contact Ever Again, and given the damage done to my life, that makes sense. Then I come here and I glimpse the humanity of the psychopath which confirms what I already sensed from observing the exP - that being him wasn't a piece of cake either. Such bleakness, emptiness and boredom, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Is there any way to include them in our lives without damaging ourselves? Since they are accomplished energy vampires, is it inevitable that prolonged encounters will leave one feeling drained?
I think no contact is a desperate strategy that can be the best choice for a person actively processing a traumatic experience or disentangling from a romantic relationship.
DeleteThe upside to no contact is that it removes the possibility of staying stuck in circular arguments/interactions that continue to traumatize a victim who still has a strong attachment to a psychopath.
I think that a person who chooses to go no contact in a situation like this would be wise to get specific feedback from a therapist before making a unilateral decision to cut someone out of their life forever. When the psychopath is a family member or someone who shares child custody, there is a ripple effect that can negatively impact individuals beyond the person you cut off contact with.
You also run the risk of provoking a psychopath (or any PD individual) further by taking such an extreme position. A compromise might be to do a period of not responding that has an endpoint the disordered individual understands. If it is framed in terms of "I don't like my responses here so I'm going to work on myself" it is far less likely to provoke a rage reaction.
No contact is an extreme version of the silent treatment, and my experience is that people who cut people out of their lives with regularity are often personality disordered themselves. If your motivation for undertaking no contact is to have the space to heal then at some point, healing has occurred and an open ended permanent shunning may be inappropriate. That's not to say that there are no risks in relating to a person who you previously had a toxic relationship with. It's just that cutting someone off entirely is just as likely to increase obsession from the other party because you have engaged in binary thinking that is reminiscent of the borderlines tendency to split a person "all black". At that point, you have dehumanized the other side and will continue to interact with your idea of them as monster, even if they are capable of more.
It's not the victim's job to "heal" an abuser/psychopath or take care of their emotions, however. That's not why I advise against strict no contact that lasts forever. Rather, I believe in doing whatever it takes to lessen the disordered attachment on both sides and avoiding causing narcissistic injuries that can occur when a person feels shunned.
In my mind, the best way to extricate oneself from a relationship with a potential psychopath is to bore them to death. You never want to stimulate the desire to chase/reclaim property. Temporary no contact can be framed in terms of "I am having emotional problems right now and don't want to burden you." Then, if that isn't honored, start being incredibly boring and long winded and repetitive as a response to any initiated contact. A successful extrication is not you feeling triumphant because you have taught the psychopath a lesson by shunning them. Rather, it is helping them believe that it is they, not you who desires that you never communicate again. You will be dropped like a hot rock. If the psychopath returns, just start droning on and on about things of no interest and seem less attractive than before.
The best way to get rid of a psychopath is to convince them that they need to "drop" you. If you drop them in a way that hurts their ego, they will always have the urge to tie up unfinished business with you in a manner that puts them "in charge". Grant them the "victory" of dumping you. That way they feel like they've "won" and you are free.
Thanks for your reply Mach. I have succeeded in getting rid of him to give myself the space to mend the damage done to my life. It was more occupational hazard than deliberate on his part so it's difficult to stay angry forever. No Contact pushed his obsessive buttons and I felt I had abandoned him to his fate so I sometimes feel bad about that. But not too bad as he has no doubt found plenty of alternative sources of supply since! Evenso I feel No Contact is not the way to go in the long term once the mess has been cleared up but I'm not about to wade back in there unless and until I have a safe modis operandi in place.
Deletesounds like you've got this under control. as far as "wading back in" I would be very careful about letting things progress beyond a superficially friendly/cordial connection. The best way for this boundary to happen is to resist all temptation to parade the new and improved post psychopath you. Convincing the psychopath you are boring and have nothing new to offer is the best path to stay disengaged.
DeleteI've done my share of perusing anti narc/psychopath websites and my general impression is that there is a lot of pathology out there. The biggest proponents of NC seem to be really angry and punishing people who want to "get back" at the psychopath. Trying to "punish" a psychopath by shunning them and then accidentally/on purpose bumping into them wearing a shirt that showcases a boob job and a new boyfriend is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. This isn't about reclaiming dignity- it's about trying to win. NC in cases like these is just one more form of manipulation.
"Winning" against a psychopath is graceful de-escalation with minimal drama. Personal growth has happened when you stop being the most desirable victim.
No I'm not intent on parading anything - there's nothing new and improved to parade - but if I have to pretend to be boring I may as well stay away. I was thinking more friendly arms-length connection, but I know any dealings with him involves wading in to an extent. I suppose I just want to know how he is and share a coffee once in a while - as you would with any ex. To treat him like a human being instead of a pariah.
DeleteIf there is a small part of you that would be validated by the psychopath's attention I think it's important to proceed with extreme caution. Being nice to each other if you bump into each other is one thing but repeatedly meeting up and reestablishing a friendship could be risky. Why? Because your psychopath knows how you think and what validation you need and will suck you back in.
DeleteFor me the best test of whether I am ready to see an ex (psychopath or other) is: Am I ok with bumping into them when I am wearing no makeup and workout clothes or do I have the need to feel they still find me attractive? If you feel the need to present yourself in a certain light it means you probably care too much what they think and would be vulnerable to seduction.
My advice is to establish firm boundaries and then you can experiment with "limited contact."
DeleteThis seems to be best for those of us with personality disordered loved ones and close contacts.
Good points Mach, I don't think I'm there yet. The last time I ran into him I looked dog rough and I wasn't happy about it. Seduction is out of the question - god knows where he's been since and I don't want any STDs thanks very much, although I know there's more to seduction than sex. What I miss most about him is our chats; when he wasn't whingeing, he was a fun conversationalist with an off-beat take on most things. But there was a lot of whingeing too. I guess the compilation album would be nice, all the best bits and see ya later!
Delete@Anon 3:39 Ah yes, firm boundaries. I'm still working on those. If I had firm boundaries, he wouldn't have lasted a week. This is tough. It's probably just the time of year, but he's on my mind. Knock-knock-knocking on my psyche door.
careful, friend. I have been there. Your heart is precious. Guard your capacity for hope for the ones who will treat you with care. You are worth it. xo.
DeleteI'd like to tell of an impression that came over me this morning and see
ReplyDeleteif anyone agrees since we're speaking of "attachment." M.E. BELONGS
TO US! What do I mean by that?
Throughout the years, M.E. has had a huge turnover in the followers
in her blog. But she does have a few "diehard loyalists" that stick with
her through thick and then. Has anyone been with her the entire 8 years?
Of course, we don't "own" M.E. She's free to live her life and make her
own decisions without our interference. But... she IS important to us.
Important enough that we want to see her flourish. The reason why
M.E.'s folks got so upset when she decided she wanted to live in slums
was because they "cared" about her. She "belonged" to them.
So what's the point I'm making? We want predicability. We want M.E.
to behave in ways that we approve of. The writer Stephen King wrote
about this in the novel "Misery." A writer's diehard and deranged fan
can not accept his "choice" for his character in a novel he writes.
You know that the folks who are attached to M.E. and want her to behave in "sensable" ways will be mad at some of her decisions.
My suggestion for M.E.'s future is that she adopt a more open posture. That way, she can increase her "fan base" and recieve more
popularity and wealth. She DOES want to people to believe that
sociopaths are NOT drooling, ax murdering, monsters doesn't she?
And she does BELONG to us!
Like she give a sh*t. Sycophant.
DeleteLove isn't sentiment. It's deliberate action (or the choice to refrain from a certain action) in the interest of another's well being. We all have such different inner worlds. Who is to judge the quality of another person's emotions? Only when emotions translate into actions do they indicate someone's true intentions.
ReplyDeleteWhile the mother was pragmatic and unsentimental, this is one of the most touching "love in action" stories out there. Her dedication to the unrewarding task of putting Daniel's needs before her own with very little positive feedback to encourage her for so many years is remarkable. If that's not love, what is?
That's fine when dealing with a child but an adult has to pull his/her weight.
Deletelove is shallow and undeserved, it is chemistry, it is a look
Delete@ aspie- that's not love it is limerance.
DeleteI heard this story on public radio and was so touched. I can't believe the dedication Daniel's adoptive mother has. I've heard other stories of people 'returning' the babies they adopted because they were SO damaged. (7 years in a crib with barely any contact. Who would n't be messed up?)
ReplyDeleteLove is an action and consistent behavior. For adults and especially children. It seems a lot of personality disorders, emotional problems, etc. are from poor of marginal parenting.
For some love is also a sentiment/deep feeling. Isn't that what separates socios from empaths? I love ME's work (and the adoptive mother of Daniel) of making a deliberate decision to make positive/healthier decisions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, that's liberating.
This is very touching.
ReplyDeleteNow, go hug your local psycho for at least 6 hours a day while keeping intense eye contact and maybe just maybe we wont have to babysit them any longer.
If only.
DeleteFreedom of speech. No respect here. At the wrong place once again. Don't belong here.
Delete*Cue the music*
ReplyDeleteChristmas comes early for some.
*Cue the music*
ReplyDeleteChristmas comes early for some.
I'm kindof freaked out about the idea of attatchment. Wouldn't that be the opposite of love? Parents who coddle their kids claiming that they 'love' them are only afraid to let go. If you love someone or something, let it be free. Anyways in practical terms, to love is to be happy with. So although I may not be happy with everyone I come into contact with, it would be in my best interest to change my mind about that. And if you can't be happy with someone at least be tolerant. One day you might be reverent.
ReplyDeletethis makes sense and seems to be like alterego posts about how she has been attached to her husband and has been committed to him for a decade. love comes in different ways, does it not? and not necessarily in emotionally clingy ones. this blog is teaching me a lot.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/catzu.cristi this guy is a sociopath and he's from Romania. You should really check him out.
ReplyDeleteRomanians aren't sociopaths, not all of them anyway. They're just the right combination of stupid and unloved by their parents to make them become mindless animals towards eachother, just like their parents did. So yeah, your whole country has an affective problem. You're all a bunch of unloved babies.
ReplyDelete"It makes you realize how young and flawed a "science" psychology is."
ReplyDeleteNot just psychology.
People love me, but I don't love (or feel love towards them) them back. I feel guitly about that.
ReplyDelete@aspie-You feel guilty probably because your parents shamed your cold/callous responses to others when you were a kid. You sound young, as you get older you will learn how to fake it to make it. It just takes longer for aspies, since you have to learn it through trials and errors, but you will get there.
DeleteNot being so emotional is actually a gift. Most of people spend half of their life making bad emotional decisions, and the other half regretting them. You will not have any of these problems. Plus you are most likely more intelligent than average person.
So, for now just fake it till you make it.
But it doesn't sound like your out to harm anybody? The fact that you feel guilty shows at some level your very conscious. That's a strength.
DeleteGreat topic today. Gotta hear the link you posted before shut eye tonight. If you get time sometime M.E., have a listen to this documentary of Beth Thomas who suffered reactive attachment disorder. her condition involved a complete inability to bond with any human being and a complete lack of empathy because of the sexual abuse she endured at a very young age by the hands of her biological father. It's a sad story, but her adoptive parents intervened, and got her the needed help. Never gave up on her. Her story is a story of true grace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-Re_Fl_L4
ReplyDeleteOh the irony!
ReplyDeleteThe ones so proudly claiming their sociopathic tendencies need love the most.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Attachment isn't love. Love is detached.
ReplyDeleteThere is a free date (photo, cd,office )recovery software for you . You can find your lost memory,just in case !
ReplyDelete