How sociopath target their "victims"

It turns out that sociopaths really do have an uncanny ability for spotting susceptible victims, as suggested in a study described by a Psychology Today writer:

In a study by Wheeler, Book and Costello of Brock University, individuals who self reported more traits associated with psychopathy were more apt to correctly identify individuals with a history of victimization. In the study, male student participants examined video tapes of twelve individuals walking from behind and rated the ease at which each could be mugged. The men also completed the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III (Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, in press) which measures interpersonal and affective traits associated with psychopathy as well as intra-personal instability and antisocial traits. Finally, they were asked to provide verbal rational for their ratings. Overall results confirmed a strong positive correlation between psychopathy scores and accuracy of victim identification. This means that individuals that score higher for psycopathy are better at selecting victims.

The study is also featured in this video clip from I, Psychopath.

I think sociopath do tend to go for a particular type of victim, or at least a certain susceptibility to their "charms." I wrote about this a little here. A typical target would be someone the sociopath feels like he can dominate, or where he can tell there is some wound, some "damage" that he can stick his finger in and play with. Being with damaged people is good for socios in two ways: (1) the playing, and (2) the damaged person expects other people to be damaged as well, so socios don't have to do as good a job of keeping up appearances, i.e. can be more of their unapologetic selves.

But that begs the question: how do sociopaths know who is damaged, or at least so quickly and accurately? As one of my readers said "I put up armor but most sociopaths can see right through it."

It reminds me of a trip I made to New Zealand. New Zealand has been an isolated island so long that it traditionally had no mammals, except for bats. Instead, it had a extremely diverse ecosystem of birds. These birds had perfected "defenses" against the other birds in their ecosystems and had survived for millions of years that way. I was told that one of the natural defenses of the birds was to remain perfectly still, which made them almost impossible to spot by the predator birds flying high overhead. Or course this tactic made them (almost literally) sitting ducks when man brought rats with them to the island.

Simply put, we all have "defenses" to disguise our weaknesses, whether wearing clothes, cosmetics, compensating with a flashy car, acquiring meaningless degrees and titles, etc. Most people construct their defenses with the average person in mind -- your boss, your spouse, your kids, your colleagues, your friends and family. A defense that may work swimmingly with most people may work not at all with a sociopath. Asking a sociopath how he is able to see through these devices is sort of like asking a rat how he is able to see through the facade of a bird remaining perfectly still.

I, Psychopath

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.