Sociopath World: book

Showing posts with label book. Show all posts

Monday, April 28, 2014

Podcasts

Thursday, April 24, 2014

My family has always been very supportive of me and whatever I've gotten myself up to. The book has been no exception. Some of my family members are supportive because they believe in "the cause" like I do, that sociopaths are often misunderstood, understudied, and that more can be done to integrate them better into society. More of my family are supportive just because they love me and want what is best. They love me for who I am, including the sociopathic traits. A few members of my family and some friends love me in spite of my sociopathic traits. They wish I could be different but they accept me as I am. I'm lucky that I don't really have family that have rejected me, just a few friends and colleagues.

For one of those middle category of family members, I send her an occasional email from people thanking me for the book and explaining that they found some explanation, solace, support, kinship, etc., or that the book otherwise helped them to better understand who they are and conceive of a better way to live based on their own specific situation. I send her these emails because she's interested in these people. Every time she gets one, she says she's surprised. I don't know why she's surprised and neither does she. I guess it's one thing to know someone who has been diagnosed as a sociopath yourself, but I think she is never expected that there are so many with all different backgrounds who read the book and identify with what I've written there. Or perhaps didn't think this type of people would find it helpful to read the experience and thoughts of others like them? Or maybe she believed that this type of people would not care enough about the experience to write me about it? So I keep sending her the emails periodically and she reads them and thinks the whole thing is fascinating, and I think her reactions are what is fascinating. I wonder if some of you would be surprised that rather than this being just a place for sociopaths to self-justify bad behavior, a lot of people are earnestly seeking to understand how/why they are different and how to do/be better at whatever it is that is important to them. Which is a very human experience and desire that I think almost anybody could identify with.

But this the type of email that I will forward her, under the subject "A startling clarity, brought to me by you":

I've just finished your book, and felt the need to reach out to you because you've made yourself available, and because I found your story and message so engaging and refreshing.

I appreciate what you've done. The "cause" as you call it, is greatly in need of individuals like you, who are willing to lay out their experience in hopes of allowing others to gain some perspective. I'm aware that you hear this often, but I found it quite satisfying to be able to stare, for a few minutes each day, at a few squiggles arranged and printed onto paper, and feel, suddenly, a sense of understanding I never imagined possible. I have never been able to relate, in earnest, my worldview and experience to anyone I've known in person. After reading your book, don't feel the need to. I understand what I am, and that I'm not alone. I don't necessarily feel a sense of belonging, but I do feel as though a veil has finally been pulled from my eyes.

I won't bore to you the details of my life or my recent self-diagnosis, but I will say that I discovered you at the time in my life at which you were most needed. I have never looked to another human for direction, held a role model, or knelt to idols, but you should know that I have a curious reverence for you.

I hoped you might be able to offer perspective on some things, not only as a sociopath, but as a functional and seemingly successful member of society.

I want you all to know that I feel the same way reading the things that you choose to share, either by emailing or commenting on the blog. I feel like I've learned so much from reading your thoughts, either because I identify/agree with them or because I don't. I've changed my mind a lot over the past 5 years or so, which is one of the major reasons why I still love to do it. So thanks to everyone for what you do.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Recent book media

Some recent media features on the book:

NY Times Book Review by Jon Ronson
NPR radio interview
BBC World Tonight radio interview with Professor Kevin Dutton, author of Wisdom of Psychopaths
Newsweek/Daily Beast (the comments are hilarious)
Huffpost Live with Dr. James Fallon and Dr. John Edens (my diagnosing psychologist)
Publisher's Weekly Review
ABC Radio Australia
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution
Business Insider review
Scientific American Review
Slate's Patrick Bateman Review
Bottom Up Radio interview
Gluck Radio interview

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Mental health stigma = all the wrong incentives

American President Obama spoke in favor of ending the stigma for mental health disorders in a recent conference addressing the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings:

The president stress[ed] that . . . the majority of the mentally ill are not violent. He said his main goal in hosting the conference is "bringing mental illness out of the shadows" and encouraging those suffering to get help.
***
"We whisper about mental health issues and avoid asking too many questions," the president said. "The brain is a body part, too. We just know less about it. And there should be no shame in discussing or seeking help for treatable illnesses that affect too many people that we love. We've got to get rid of that embarrassment. We've got to get rid of that stigma."

Glenn Close, who has advocated on behalf of mental issues before:

"The truth is the stigma has hardly budged," Close said during a panel discussion on how to address negative attitudes moderated by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Close referred to studies showing the public doesn't want to have those with mental illness as neighbors, supervising them at work or taking care of their children and believe they are violent.

Basically, the problem with stigmatizing those who come out regarding having a mental disorder and making their lives miserable because of it is that no one will want to get diagnosed with or disclose any sort of mental disorder. Which is the more appealing option?

Let's relate this to sociopaths for a second (although they are allegedly untreatable, as of yet). I have experienced severe and adverse reactions from the publication of the book, which was a little surprising to me, as someone who lives in a society that is governed by the rule of law with constitutional and other legal personal protections against discrimination, with an impeccable record of never having been arrested or accused of a crime, no history of violence, and having managed to integrate well enough to be a contributing member of society in my profession and circle of friends. Apart from a few broken hearts and hurt feelings and an inability to feel true remorse for other small infractions, I haven't done much to deserve being treated this way. But I am currently not being judged based on my record. Rather, I have identified myself as having a particular mental disorder and am now suffering the consequences of the accompanying stigma. Should I be legally protected based on my diagnosis and be judged solely on my actions or not? If not, what are the implications for me or the incentives for anyone else to be upfront about this disorder? And what are the chances of other sociopaths being forthcoming in the future? As a recent commenter put it so aptly:

In some ways it's easier to be a sociopath because you report that you are unencumbered by guilt and are less fearful than most people. You have less need for validation if you do not score high in narcissism. But what may be difficult to understand is that the lack of empathy that protects you from feeling unpleasant things also creates a pretty significant blind spot because it is difficult for you to anticipate the level of rage and fear you generate in the general public. In the abstract, this does not present a problem, and likely even amuses you.

In reality, however, you have self identified as a monster and have essentially given those who sit at the top of these power structures the permission to dehumanize you. Why is this a problem? Because the "rules" that you feel do not apply to you in terms of maintaining social relationships now cut both ways. You might feel clever because you have escaped the obligations to conform because of guilt. But the other side of "coming out" as a sociopath is that now the rules that neurotypicals must follow in regards to their own behavior do not apply to you. You are stripped of your right to be treated as a human being because you have been reclassified as an "it."

With the recent advances in brain imaging, it is not unlikely that that state governments will begin legislating the mandatory testing of "at risk" individuals. You can't hide a brain scan, and it will be a mark of Cain that ethically challenged neurotypicals will use to discredit/ruin you should your voice somehow feel like a threat to these invisible power networks.

I've exposed my bias (I love someone who has sociopathic tendencies) which is why a scenario like this scares me. State identified Sociopaths could become to modern day governments what the Jews were to Hitler. Scapegoats. So if you think that you are a sociopath, please consider this blind spot with an eye to your own safety.

It's sort of funny because out of all of the things I have done in my life, writing the book and being open with my disorder seems like one of the better things, but it's the thing that has caused me the most trouble. My question to people is, what would you rather have had me do? Remained silent? Never have written about this issue? Cured myself of the disorder starting when I was child old enough to make my own decisions? I'm curious what people's proposed solution is for people like me.

Will it take some time, resources, tolerance, and courage to properly integrate people with mental disorders into society? Yes. Will some disorders be harder to integrate and/or more detestable or less obviously beneficial to you personally? Yes. Complain all you want about how bothersome "special" accommodations for the mentally disordered may be, but as I once read, blind people could equally consider street lamps to be a special accommodations for the sighted who can't manage to walk around outside at night without them. And the problem with a tyranny of the majority (apart from ethical, practical, and evolutionary reasons that we might want to encourage instead of discourage human diversity) is that it's very difficult to predict when you might suddenly find yourself defined as a minority.

You can choose to disenfranchise people from society, if you want, but those decisions will have long-lasting and often unpredictable consequences. And the American President doesn't think it's a good idea either.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Mind-blindness and empathy

Sociopaths can be very mind-blind about certain things, especially the inner emotional worlds of others. Sociopaths are not the only ones who can be mind-blind, though. Despite normal people's professed empathy, I have noticed before and particularly since the publication of the book that many empaths can't seem to get into the mindset of a sociopath. I think a lot of it also has to do to a tendency that we all have to project our own feelings and thoughts about a situation onto another person.

I talk about this a little bit in the book, about how I used to think that people were just like me until basically my late teens and early 20's. And now that I am a little more aware, I realize that I make frequently incorrect assumptions about the inner worlds of others, but I'm happy to be corrected when appropriate. I notice it in others as well but some people aren't open to correcting their misperceptions. This particular brand of mind-blindness is often mixed with a touch of xenophobia, and a dash of hypocrisy, seeing the apparent flaws in someone else's worldview without acknowledging the limitations of one's own perception. The evolutionary plus of this blend of mind-blindness+xenophobia+hypocrisy is that it promotes social conformity. It makes people feel so sure of themselves that they don't think twice about forcing others to conform, even if it means something so drastic as killing them (witch hunts, Inquisition, modern religious states where we stone people, etc.) And conformity leads to a greater sense of cohesion amongst the rest of the group, which can be socially beneficial, particularly in times of war.

Although I acknowledge that humans being able to unscrupulously enforce their will on other people can sometimes benefit society, I don't really like being the target of this sort of social influence and scrutiny. It's why I sometimes don't like being around other white women -- they feel like we're similar enough that they know all about me, even sometimes believing they know me better than I know myself. They also feel invested enough in me and how I reflect on them and greater womanhood that if I step out of line, I could face severe consequences (Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons?).

I've been thinking a lot about mind-blindness with the publication of the book and subsequent promotional activities. I've been thinking about my own mind-blindness, including the ways that I have not been able to predict the spectrum/proportion of people's different reactions (In the past few weeks I've learned more about why exactly people hate sociopaths than I did in the past few years of the blog). I've also been a little amazed at other people's mind-blindness, as evidenced by the all-over-the-map reactions to the book and promotional activities -- seemingly contradictory things like thinking that I am both the epitome of evil (a clear and an imminent threat to society) and that I'm also a fraud.

I wonder about the nature of the fraud accusations. When people say "fraud," does it only mean that they believe the word "sociopath" does not accurately apply to me? Because I'm pretty upfront that maybe it doesn't and maybe I've been misdiagnosed and who knows what that word means anyway and the diagnostic criterion are notoriously subjective, but isn't that itself an interesting thing to note about sociopathy? That if someone like me can be diagnosed a sociopath, then maybe it doesn't mean much when other people are involuntarily diagnosed sociopaths and kept in prisons because of it? If they think I am a fraud because I am lying about what's happened to me in my life, I am surprised because I don't find my experiences to be particularly outrageous or extraordinary. But I guess when you say "diagnosed sociopath" people expect to see a particular thing and when they don't see that thing, instead of thinking to themselves -- maybe my idea of a sociopath is not accurate, maybe I am not an expert at identifying sociopaths -- they instead conclude, this woman is a fraud. Maybe because they would rather live in a world in which they can rely on their own gut assessments about people, and me not being what they expected me to look/act/sound like is a direct challenge to that worldview? Interestingly, I've gotten a lot less pushback about who I say I am from non-Americans and from men, presumably because they're projecting less of their own characteristics and worldview on me?

Maybe people are unimpressed or disgusted by sociopath behavior, but I'm recently not that impressed by empath behavior. If empathy only applies to people who look and act just like you (and even then, is largely based on inaccurate projections of one's own worldview on another), then what is so special about empathy?

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Book responses (part 6)

From a reader:

I read your book (blew through it really) and it was interesting to say the least. Specifically when I find something written down by someone else that I had always felt. For example, you said "I feel I have no particular sexual identity. Even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of preference. I think equal opportunity is a more apt label in that I see no reason to discriminate."

I have said this to a friend of mine (almost verbatim) when trying to explain why I dislike sexual labels.

Sometimes, it becomes utterly exhausting to keep us this image of someone who gives a damn. Let it slip just a little and I have to deal with "What's wrong with you?" from all sides. It's comforting to realize that there are other people that think the way I do, though they may also have to keep everything under a tight guard.

I would love to be able to explain why I liked the book so much, but I haven't figured out a way to do that and not out myself (without flat out lying about why I read it). So my goodreads review is kind of empty, but I wanted to offer at least this much feedback.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Book responses (part 5)

From a "sympathetic neurotypical" reader:

Reading your book "Confessions of a Sociopath" has been a watershed experience for me. It confirms my hopeful suspicion that far from being evil, sociopaths are just different.

Because you don't know me and likely don't get fired up because a self identified empath spews some version of "You're good enough, smart enough, and people like you" I will cut to the chase.

I would like to meet you and converse with you at length, and not just for kicks. I am a writer who is fascinated by this topic and how the so called "dark triad" traits interact within the context of conservative/fundamentalist variations of religion.

I have a theory: Sociopaths may well be society's salvation because they are the ultimate bullshit detectors. I am the granddaughter of a prominent evangelical leader who was the ultimate "cult of personality" figure. He was a supreme narcissist and all of us struggle someone with the sort of "drama of the gifted child" legacy that comes with being a "prop" in the grand myth surrounding the demigod of a Christian patriarchal family. Though I've ben divorced since 2008, I "escaped" this upbringing by marrying the scion of another Christian patriarchy at the age of 20. Suffice it to say I have learned quite a bit about the "complicated" morality of neurotypicals who consider themselves to be morally above reproach.

My entire life has been steeped in the judgments of good and evil that a family culture like this perpetuate, and I have known since I was about 10 that there was something "off" in a different way (different than sociopathic, I mean) about my clan. Specifically - the tendency to scapegoat anyone that questions the moral authority of the system." Questions from observers produce an annihilating rage and motivation to exterminate the one asking the questions after the veneers of patronizing "compassion for the unsaved" get stripped off.

Why do I think you might want to talk to me? Because I have an intimate knowledge of the sort of individuals who want to exterminate "you and your kind."

I am including a link to a column I wrote last year about the importance of not stigmatizing children who are put in the antisocial category (via MRI or by clinical diagnosis) to help you understand that I think our thinking on this topic is very compatible.

But perhaps the most significant reason I want to advocate for the better understanding of sociopathic traits is the fact I am pretty sure someone dear to me is one. And I'll be damned if I let anyone scapegoat her.

While the callous/unemotional side of your described experience does not ring a bell for me, I very much identify with your sensation seeking personality and your Machiavellian way of operating. It's interesting that you link the stronger connection between the right and left hemispheres with both sociopathy and ADD because I have a screaming case of the latter, which I consider to be an asset, not a disability, which is probably why I have no problem with your dispassionate way of viewing the world.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Book responses (part 3)

From a reader:

I read your book on Kindle - you remind me of someone I love but haven't seen for ages. I am neither sociopathic nor normal.

Who is normal? I would list Buddha, Lincoln, Isaac Newton, Leonardo. Most would probably think of these luminaries as beyond normal. For me they represent 'true normal' - 'normal' in a non-statistical sense, a kind of normal having more to do with what is possible than with what is probable. "I shall urge that there is here [in the genius] no real departure from normality; […] but rather a fulfillment of the true norm of man." (FWH Myers) 'True normal' also has to do with self awareness, self mastery, and moral agency. Moral agency requires some degree of self mastery, which in its turn requires self awareness. "The differentia of genius lies in an increased control of subliminal mentation."(FWH Myers)

How close is ME to this true norm? She has a high degree of self awareness, a degree moreover not considered typical for sociopaths. The liar's paradox lurks here. That is, she may be faking it. But I don't think so. Be that as it may, the higher the degree of self awareness, the closer one is to this true norm. So, in my judgement, ME is going in the right direction, the direction of increasing consciousness.

Interestingly, she sees her sociopathy as the motivating force behind her quest for greater self awareness. Perhaps then it is by fulfilling her sociopathic tendencies that she will ultimately outgrow them.

What else? The ability to concentrate is crucial for the development of self awareness, self mastery. To be without guilt, remorse, empathy, depression, can be helpful in this arena. We see this insight expressed over and over again in popular fiction where the cold or emotionless character has greater powers of mind (e.g. of observation or deduction) than his fellows. So here ME has another advantage when it comes to developing greater awareness and therefore, I should stress, a greater range of moral choice.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Book responses (part 2)

From a reader:

I just finished reading your book and I wanted to say that I found it utterly fascinating. I am not a sociopath but I definitely displayed antisocial traits as a child. Perhaps if my childhood had been different I would have ended up different. I enjoyed reading your points of view on nature and nurture for antisocial children. But more than anything I appreciate the perspective you brought on the issue of sociopaths in society. Before reading your book I never truly recognized the unfair bias and often outright double standards (I have multiple aspies in my family) society places upon sociopaths. Being a member of the gay community I am well aware that it was not so long ago that I would have been considered a "monster" or "deviant". Maybe one day more people will see that there are good, highly functioning sociopaths out there just like there are violent and dangerous ones--as is the case for any variant of humans.

I remember I took a psychology class in college, just for the hell of it, and on a test we were asked to write several paragraphs about what we believed to be the worst of the personality disorders. I thought it was silly because there is no unbendable mold for psychological disorders; they can be good, bad, or both. Most people in my class wrote that sociopaths were the worst kinds of people and I wrote that if I had to choose, I would list BPD as the worst. My teacher actually pulled me aside and asked me to further explain why I felt that way. I guess many others listed socios because of the link to violence and people with BPD are not typically known to be violent. The only reason I had was personal experience; I've known several sociopaths and remain friends with some of them, but everyone I've known that had BPD was just awful. Awful in a sense of massively annoying and using extreme emotions to manipulate--often resulting in hysterics and acts of self-harm. All of which I found extremely time-consuming and obnoxious. I'm sure there are BPDs out there that aren't bad--I just haven't met any yet.

I've never talked at length with my socio friends about how they think or process things--I just know they are different and leave it at that. Thank you for providing insight I might otherwise have never been exposed to.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Book responses

From a reader:

I graduated last week with a Masters in Counseling. I'm getting ready for my "post-corporate" career.

After doing nothing but reading and studying for national exams the last three months, I didn't think that I would ever want to read another book related to psychology again. However, I read a review of your book in the New York Post (below) and had to get this book.

What I enjoyed about your book was your honesty. All good autobiographies show the darkness as well as the light (Steve Jobs autobiography is a great example). Thank you for being so candid. Your book was also incredibly well written and well researched. I could not put it down.

You also gave me insight into a disturbing situation that I experienced at work about 20 years ago. It always confused me, but now I fully know what happened - I was dealing with a sociopath!

Thank you for providing me this insight.

Just a few comments as I am about to move into the mental health field as well as some personal observations of your book. But first, from an Empath's point of view, here is what I cannot stand about sociopaths.

I hate that you play games when we empaths are not playing games! (I acknowledge that all people play games).

Look I'm an empathic person, but I can be as competitive any anybody. But once the game is over, it's over! I want a real relationship, not games.

For sociopaths it never stops. And that's the problem, you think you are so F_____! smart, but the truth is sociopaths are cowards. You pick on people who are not even fighting with you. Deception has its place, in war, the board room and the court room but it's death in relationships.

And the really perverse part is, you think that you are exerting your "power" and winning. But in truth you were destroying the person who wanted to show you trust which is the very thing that you need most. In the end you have a Pyrrhic victory, you won the battle, but lost the war in obtaining a true relationship.

Just my personal 2 cents (I know you don't care). Now I want to tell you what I found most interesting about your book (which you probably do care about).

I believe the most profound statement that you made was on pg. 153 in your book:

"I believe that a lot of the sociopath's traits such as charm, manipulation, lying, promiscuity, chameleonism, mask wearing and lack of empathy are largely attributable to a very weak sense of self. I believe that all personality disorders share a distorted or abnormal sense of self".

You nailed it! During my internship it was very clear that whether I was dealing with Narcissists, Borderlines, and other personality disorders that all of these people had no true sense of self.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
Hamlet - Act 1, scene 3

Secondly, I find it very interesting that on pg. 65 where you said, "my father's emotional and moral hypocrisy taught me not to trust emotions or anything else that couldn't be backed up with hard, indisputable fact." The majority of my client's struggle with trust issues - divorce, sexual abuse, illness, etc. So often the underlying theme in our sessions is, "I want to trust, but I'm so afraid, Help me!".

Lastly, In Chapter 7 of your book you describe identifying yourself with the Tin Woodman in the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. "But as heartless as I am, I have wanted love, to feel connection, to feel like I belong to the world like anyone else. No one, it seems, can escape loneliness."

You quoted John Bowlby in your book. Of all the theorists that I studies in school, I was most impacted by his work. Yes, human beings can be untrustworthy, unkind, undependable and candidly, a pain in the ass! But they are worth it. In the end connection, love, kindness, goodness and gentleness is what makes life worth living.

My hope for you is that this "Tin Woman" finds her heart.

I also realize that you must be going through a difficult time right now as it appears that your identity has been outed and that you may expect some "unintended consequences" from publishing this book.

Hang in there. The best thing for you is that people know that you are a sociopath.

Your mask is your defense, but it's also your problem.

Someone can only have a relationship with you if you are honest about who you are. Your mask of secrecy is a hindrance and not a help in your life.

Best wishes and God's blessings to you in your journey.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Appendix (part 7)

I wanted to include this quote in the book chapter about Mormonism, regarding the Mormon church's doctrine re different types of people (including neurodiversity), but it was too late to add to the manuscript. From LDS President Dieter F. Uchtdorf:

But while the Atonement is meant to help us all become more like Christ, it is not meant to make us all the same. Sometimes we confuse differences in personality with sin. We can even make the mistake of thinking that because someone is different from us, it must mean they are not pleasing to God. This line of thinking leads some to believe that the Church wants to create every member from a single mold—that each one should look, feel, think, and behave like every other. This would contradict the genius of God, who created every man different from his brother, every son different from his father. Even identical twins are not identical in their personalities and spiritual identities.

It also contradicts the intent and purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ, which acknowledges and protects the moral agency—with all its far-reaching consequences—of each and every one of God’s children. As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are united in our testimony of the restored gospel and our commitment to keep God’s commandments. But we are diverse in our cultural, social, and political preferences.

The Church thrives when we take advantage of this diversity and encourage each other to develop and use our talents to lift and strengthen our fellow disciples.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Book appendix (part 6)

Here's a section on information warfare that didn't fit anywhere in the book:

My dad’s need for control manifests itself in diverse ways. We call one control game “information warfare.” In this game, the goal is to try to disclose as little information as possible while not seeming to obviously evade the question. For example:
Dad comes through the door in the middle of a workweek.

Me: “Hello?”
Silence.
I look up to see who it is, “Why are you here?”
Dad: “I have to be here, I’m sorry.”
Me: “Why?”
Dad: “I’m not good.”
Me: “You’re not feeling good, or you have been bad?”
Silence.
Me: “Well it’s good you’re here, we can get burritos for lunch.”
Dad: “I can’t do that but you can do that.”
Silence.
Me: “You’re not making any sense.”
Dad: “Why?”

The game is played all the time. Like soccer, most of it is just little trade offs until my dad finds the right time to strike and make a “goal”. A goal in this game is for him to get the other person to make a false conclusion based on incomplete and/or false or misleading information that he has been feeding them.

Brother: “Dad, are we going to refinance that rental property?”
Silence.
Brother: “Dad, I was talking to my realtor who says that if we refinance we might be able to get enough out for a down payment on another property.”
Silence.
Brother: “Apparently the rates are the lowest they’ve been all year.”
Days later.
Brother: “Dad, I filled out some paperwork for the bank to refinance that rental property.”
“You did what?!”
“We talked about this, my realtor thought we could get some extra money out and lock in a very low rate.”
“Stupid, stupid, stupid.” Three stupids in my dad’s lexicon is almost like an epithet—you are very seriously stupid. “That property is in a limited liability partnership! Banks won’t refinance a property that’s in a limited liability partnership!”

And that’s how you score a goal.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Book appendix (part 5)

(cont. from interview with my mother):

Sometimes I feel guilty for it because I know I was gone, being on the stage and trying to figure out what would bring happiness in my life and I was gone way too much. I should have been home more and keeping tabs on things.

I know you were always closed off, like affection. You weren’t ever very affectionate, as far as hugging. You were kind of closed off emotionally. I don’t ever remember you crying. Instead of you being sad, you usually chose to be angry. That was your emotion of choice. It seems like when you got angry, you would just get in someone’s face verbally and then you would try to get that person to have their own emotional explosion. I remember you would try to push dad’s buttons and get him to get really mad. It’s almost like you liked the emotional turmoil of anger and every now and then you would feed into that and make it happen. Then things would calm down, until they would build up again. But I don’t know. Dad was like that too. But it seemed like you and he butted heads a lot. I don't remember you ever being sad or hurt. Even when you were in the hospital with the physical hurt, you weren’t crying or sad. You know, like a normal person would do. Especially girl. You know teenage girls, they would cry over stuff, be hurt or have their feelings hurt. I don’t remember you ever being like that. So you were definitely not the typical teenage girl. I think that’s why you didn’t have a lot of teenage girl friends. Most of your friends were boys, maybe because you related to them a lot more. Boys aren’t very emotional, they’re more thinking.

I think you have a little ADD. It’s hard for you to focus on one thing at a time. You have to be doing like 3 things at once, even in church you’ll be doing multiple things. You can’t focus on one thing at a time, or at least not for very long. But I also think you’re always just thinking about things and wondering about things, so something will catch your interest and you’ll want to explore that. You’re kind of an explorer type of personality; you like to explore new and different things.

In the way that you did far more and went far more than any of the other kids, that was a little bit of a surprise because I don’t think it was anything normal. You were like super child, going out and doing things far beyond what was expected.

I don’t think you’re trying to corrupt people, but I think you like to do things for shock value—just throw things out there and see how they land, see how they would fly. So I think I was a little uncomfortable with your influence over your younger siblings. I think you’re influential. Sometimes I see the whole family bending to what you want to do and I think we have set you or accepted you in that role of figuring out what we want to do or how we are going to do it, and I think we enjoy that. And I don’t think you carry it too far either. I don’t think you’re too pushy about it. But you are definitely a natural born leader. I think that’s what makes you such a good teacher. I think you’re influential because you’re smart and determined and passionate about the things you want to do, and I think people tend to want to follow someone like that. I think the family follows you because we know you’re smart and efficient and you can figure out probably the best way of doing things and you have novel and fun ideas. You’re always full of ideas. And you’re always coming up with good ways of solving problems or making things happen smoothly.

I remember one time when I was super proud of you, singing this particular song I like. That was a proud moment because you were just up there saying I’m my own person, I don’t care what other people do to me, I’m going to live my life the way I want to. And I was just proud of you for that. I don’t think I’ve ever been that way. I’m getting to be more and more that way, but I used to not be. I used to be codependent, trying to manipulate people from the wings but never really voicing my opinion and saying what I wanted, what I needed. I was always kind of in the shadows. That’s why I liked the stage I think, because I could be somebody else, another person. And I was good at it and people thought I was wonderful, so I think that’s why I kind of got addicted to the stage.

I think the book is kind of cool. I see it as another step in your healing and becoming more your own person. Kind of dealing with all of the stuff that’s happened to you and figuring out who you really are. I think the book is part of this process.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Book appendix (part 1)

The book is officially out in North America. To celebrate, I thought I would share some source material that I collected to write the book. This is from an email from the friend who first mentioned the word "sociopath" to me:

I remember when you first walked in the office we shared. Weren't you wearing flipflops? I was trying to counsel you on how to behave yourself around the office. And you gave me my own Book of Mormon with highlighted passages! We talked religion and ethics a lot at first. Once I found out you had some attraction for the ladies, we started talking about our personal lives.

So, as far as my arm-chair sociopath diagnosis goes, I remember the following things:
(1) I would exercise my charm on people around the office, including our boss. (What was her name? I can't remember anymore.) You would observe me do this and comment on it. Like, complimentary comments. I thought about that and the way you watched me, as if you were analyzing the interactions. It reminded me of the way another sociopath friend would analyze how I interacted with people and try to integrate it into his repertoire. But you had charms of your own, of course.
(2) Your penchant for law and economics and how we would argue about the lack of humanity in the system. I remember I told you the story of my first-year law school class and how our teacher asked how we might assign ownership of property besides "first-in-time." People suggested things like first-in-merit, a lottery, etc. I raised my hands and suggested "first-in-need." Everyone stared at me and the prof didn't even write it on the board! When I told you the story, you gave me a look like you couldn't imagine why an intelligent person like me would say something like that . . .
(3) Your attitude toward law school and your job was so . . . emotionally detached. I don't know exactly how to explain this. There are a lot of people who go to law school or take jobs as stepping stones to something else, not because they see inherent value or want to help people, etc. But you were outside of that, even. You achieved almost effortlessly and didn't seem the least bit anxious about your performance. It didn't seem like your self esteem hinged on your success--it was easy for you, because you weren't scared the way most of us were. I didn't see you in action in law school, of course, but you would talk about it and this struck me as interesting. I was a little envious of your detachment.
(4) You took me to church with you. And to some anti-sex education class afterward (at the church). I could see that you had very little, if any, investment in any of what was really being taught. You claimed to be a Mormon, but it seemed skin-deep to me. Like you were playing a role you had been assigned and decided to go along with. I remember thinking: "She doesn't believe any of this; her world-view comes from a completely different place and it's just easier to try to fit in."
(4) You would flirt with me, a little, but I didn't get the impression that there was any actual feeling behind it, other than that you liked me, found me somewhat interesting and perhaps useful for bouncing ideas off, etc. I could see myself being attracted to you, but sensed--at some level--that there was something different about you. I flirted with you back, but not a lot. Just enough to intuit that I could get hurt if I actually let myself develop feelings for you. (QUEUE FLASHING WARNING LIGHTS!) My intuition prevented me somehow, even though you were highly attractive.
(5) It was the end of the summer before I finally said the word "sociopath" to you outloud. You and I were hanging out together outside of work by this point. I remember you were driving me around town. It might have been the same day you took me to visit your family. In any case, we were walking outside somewhere and I remember you telling me a story about someone--someone who had been going through something difficult. You said something like, "I don't know how to react in those types of situations. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say or feel." Now any empath could say something like, given a strange situation--a situation they had never experienced before. But given all I knew about you and the situation you described (which I can no longer remember), it sort of hit me in a "lightbulb" moment. I think I said to you, "M.E., have you ever considered that you might be a sociopath?" I think I explained a little about what I meant, trying not to offend you. You didn't seem offended at all, but just thoughtful for a minute or two. I probably explained a little about my sociopath friend and my experience with him. Maybe you remember more about this than I do.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Book coming out this week

The book comes out in North America tomorrow, May 14th (other places soon). This week is going to be book related posts.

First, where to order the book:

Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307956644
B&N: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Confessions-of-a-Sociopath/ME-Thomas/e/9780307956644/?itm=1&USRI=confessions+of+a+sociopath
Indiebound: http://www.indiebound.org/product/info.jsp?affiliateId=randomhouse1&isbn=0307956644
Powell’s: http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780307956644

Second, where to read more about the book to decide if you want to buy or if it is not yet in your market:

Psychology Today excerpt.

Boston Globe book review.

NY Post.

Later this week, I'm going to try to schedule a Q&A on reddit. I'll post a link with times when I have that set. Also later this week, some "source material" for the book.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Q&As (part 1)

I did these Q&As for book promotion and thought I'd share them here as well:

Were you always aware that you were different?

Yes, though when I was young, I thought maybe it was just because I was smarter than everyone else. I saw things that other children did not see, was aware of the adult world in a way that even my smart siblings were not—awkward interactions from the end of an affair, why my grandpa treated my Dad differently from his other children (he was adopted), and so on. I knew other people did not see these things because I would reference them and get blank stares in return. I learned to keep things to myself, even to pretend I didn’t see them. Those were probably some of my first attempts to wear a mask of normalcy.

What are the common characteristics/behaviors shared by most sociopaths? Do they describe you, too?

Lack of remorse or concern for hurting or stealing; being deceitful, manipulative, impulsive, irritable, aggressive, and consistently irresponsible; failure to conform to social norms; and being unconcerned about people’s safety, including their own. You need to have at least three of these to be sociopath. I have them all, to varying degrees.

Why did you write CONFESSIONS OF A SOCIOPATH under a pen name?

I understood that being completely anonymous would hurt the authenticity of the book, yet I have no desire to be famous for being a sociopath. I also have relatives and friends who asked me to respect their privacy. But I still wanted people to know that I am a real person, and these things really did happen.

The book’s publication will likely out you as a sociopath. Why were you willing to take that risk?

I’m a risk-seeker and writing the book is probably one of the riskiest things I have done. I’m also a novelty seeker. I say “yes” to more things than I say no to. Writing the book gave me something interesting and exciting to divert my energies in a productive manner, rather than indulging any urges to stir up trouble in destructive ways.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Hidden Suffering of the Psychopath

Willem H.J. Martens* has published his book, heavily featuring some of the readers of this website and participants of the forum. Martens says: "The money (8 dollars) is for our Kahn Institute os Theoretical Psychiatry and Neuroscience."

About the book:

This book provides new insight in the nature of psychopathy. On basis of analysis anonymous self-reports and case reports of members of an internet forum for psychopaths it was concluded that psychopaths are suffering too and demonstrate a different psychodynamic mechanism as was proposed untill now. Dr. Martens is a forensic psychiatrist/psychoanalyst who published in many international journas.

It is for behavioral scientists, forensic psychiatrists/psychotherapists, criminologists and staff members of forensic psychiatric hospitals extremely important to know how persons with psychopathy experience their disorder and how do they think about their behavior, tendencies and attitude. Until now this is not clarified.

Psychopaths might regard their features, attitude and behavior quite differently than their non-psychopathic counterparts and researchers do. This distinction might be the result of a) ignorance of non-psychopaths about the true nature of this complex disorder, b) a very different perspective of psychopaths and non-psychopaths in analyzing this phenomenon, c) the fact that most empirical data is gathered from incarnated, criminal populations who are very able to manipulate tests (most of them know much about the PCL-R), asessments, researchers, and therapists (just for fun, revenge, hatred, or disgust) and d) a lack of utilization of and unavailability of reliable and voluntary self-reports of psychopaths in informal settings, and so on. Informal, non-academic and non-clinical settings are important because the psychopaths I investigated hate formal academic and clinical settings because they consider them as bulwarks of repressing authority which are harmful for them. They consider current theories and concepts of psychopathy as inadequate, incomplete, incorrect, stereotype which bring about stigmatization.

I revealed that reliable self-reports of psychopaths (which would not have negative consequences) were posted on the anonymous internet forum discussion for psychopaths (www.SociopathWorld.com). I discovered that Internet Forums of Psychopaths were true goldmines of information which form the missing link in current research, treatment and theorizing. On the internet forum the participants can tell their stories, concerns and discuss their items freely and anonymously. They trust the fellow psychopaths and their stories are really revealing and provide profound analysis of their behavior and many unknown details. Their otherwise defensive attitude appeared to be vanished and it seems that they are able to help and support each other. Potentially persons with very violent tendencies are guided and supported by other forum participants in a rather “social” way in order to stay out of problems and avoid harmfulness. Many visitors of the forum tell that the discussions and the chance to tell their true stories caused relief for them and there were many we were thankful to be part of a sort of community which gave their life structure and new insights.

*Willem H. J. Martens - MD, PhD - Composer and Chair of W. Kahn Institute of Theoretical Psychiatry and Neuroscience and Advisor appointed by the European Commission (Leonardo da Vinci). Address: Henk van Tienhovenstraat 67, 6543JB Nijmegen (Gelderland), The Netherlands.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Successful and sociopathic

I thought this NY Times op ed, "Successful and Schizophrenic," had some interesting parallels. It tells the story of a law professor who was diagnosed as schizophrenic (I hope I'm doing the math right) in her early 20s. She was basically told that she would be living in a group home for the rest of her life. And she was actually hospitalized multiple times (apparently), but after her last stint at age 28 she was told that maybe she could get a job as a cashier making change part time. Instead she became a law professor and recipient of a MacArthur Foundation genius grant. Is she still schizophrenic?

Although I fought my diagnosis for many years, I came to accept that I have schizophrenia and will be in treatment the rest of my life. Indeed, excellent psychoanalytic treatment and medication have been critical to my success. What I refused to accept was my prognosis.

Conventional psychiatric thinking and its diagnostic categories say that people like me don’t exist. Either I don’t have schizophrenia (please tell that to the delusions crowding my mind), or I couldn’t have accomplished what I have (please tell that to [University of Southern California]’s committee on faculty affairs). But I do, and I have. And I have undertaken research with colleagues at U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. to show that I am not alone. There are others with schizophrenia and such active symptoms as delusions and hallucinations who have significant academic and professional achievements.

There were also really helpful suggestions about how each person came up with coping mechanisms specific to their individual issues:

How had these people with schizophrenia managed to succeed in their studies and at such high-level jobs? We learned that, in addition to medication and therapy, all the participants had developed techniques to keep their schizophrenia at bay. For some, these techniques were cognitive. An educator with a master’s degree said he had learned to face his hallucinations and ask, “What’s the evidence for that? Or is it just a perception problem?” Another participant said, “I hear derogatory voices all the time. ... You just gotta blow them off.”

Part of vigilance about symptoms was “identifying triggers” to “prevent a fuller blown experience of symptoms,” said a participant who works as a coordinator at a nonprofit group. For instance, if being with people in close quarters for too long can set off symptoms, build in some alone time when you travel with friends.

Other techniques that our participants cited included controlling sensory inputs. For some, this meant keeping their living space simple (bare walls, no TV, only quiet music), while for others, it meant distracting music. “I’ll listen to loud music if I don’t want to hear things,” said a participant who is a certified nurse’s assistant. Still others mentioned exercise, a healthy diet, avoiding alcohol and getting enough sleep. A belief in God and prayer also played a role for some.

Sound familiar to anyone? The advice to identify and avoid triggers by explicitly structuring your life to avoid or minimize them? Exercise and diet? Sleep and sensory inputs? Religion (which always what I fall back on when my brain is sick)?

She goes on to talk about how some people pour themselves into a rewarding career. She warns about the conflation of symptoms and diagnosis:

Far too often, the conventional psychiatric approach to mental illness is to see clusters of symptoms that characterize people. Accordingly, many psychiatrists hold the view that treating symptoms with medication is treating mental illness. But this fails to take into account individuals’ strengths and capabilities, leading mental health professionals to underestimate what their patients can hope to achieve in the world.

She mentions that some people with autism managed their symptoms, sometimes to the point of eliminating them. She then closes with these thoughts that could apply equally well to sociopathy:

I don’t want to sound like a Pollyanna about schizophrenia; mental illness imposes real limitations, and it’s important not to romanticize it. We can’t all be Nobel laureates like John Nash of the movie “A Beautiful Mind.” But the seeds of creative thinking may sometimes be found in mental illness, and people underestimate the power of the human brain to adapt and to create.

An approach that looks for individual strengths, in addition to considering symptoms, could help dispel the pessimism surrounding mental illness. Finding “the wellness within the illness,” as one person with schizophrenia said, should be a therapeutic goal. . . . They should encourage patients to find their own repertory of techniques to manage their symptoms and aim for a quality of life as they define it.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

The right way to do wrong

This book sounds intriguing, a collection of writings from Harry Houdini under the title "The Right Way to Do Wrong":

Originally published in 1906, The Right Way to Do Wrong was a masterclass in subversion conducted by the world’s greatest illusionist. It collected Houdini’s findings, from interviews with criminals and police officers, on the most surefire ways to commit crime and get away with it.

This volume presents the best of those writings alongside little-known articles by Houdini on his own brand of deception: magic. Revealing the secrets of his signature tricks, including handcuff and rope escapes, and debunking the methods of his rivals, he proves  himself to be just as clever and nimble a writer as he was a magician—and surprisingly free with trade secrets! All of which makes this unique selection of works both the ultimate anti-etiquette guide and proof that things are not always as they seem.

Pages