Boundaries: help or hindrance?

A reader asked about her sociopathic-seeming significant other, bringing up an interesting point about boundaries:

He knows he has thing's inside of him that work different from most people. I don't like to say, "normal" because to me, he is pretty normal or tries to go with the flow as much as he possibly can. I know to always be on my guard, and I have noticed that if I seem more like it does not bother me and if I am more stern with my remarks and answers, he seems to like that. Is that normal I suppose.

I don't know if I can speak for all sociopaths on this point, but I myself like well-defined boundaries, at least in personal relationships that I am interested in maintaining, and it sounds like he is the same. It is a little unusual for a sociopath to be in such a long relationship. By now he no longer derives most of his pleasure in the relationship from the constant acquisition of power, through playing games with you, seducing you, etc. You must provide something else to him that he values enough to try to keep the relationship working, whether stability, a front/beard/respectability, money, someone to take care of his kids, intimacy, or any other number of things. Basically you are still a profitable endeavour for him -- he may pay $100K a month to keep the thing running, but he gets at least $101K a month in return, so he'll keep that up forever. In other words, his brain is constantly running a cost benefit analysis of staying with you: all the time and effort it takes and possible negative consequences ($100K) compared to all of the benefit he receives ($101K). Just like a business, he might let things dip into the red here and there on a bad month, but ultimately will not continue seeing you if he sees it as a losing endeavor.

You being stern helps him keep the account in the black by reducing expenses. There is always going to be a certain amount of waste in a business, including breakage of merchandise, worker injuries, broken machinery, or hurt feelings. To fix that, businesses establish rules to promote optimum precautionary measures. For instance, instead of the business paying thousands of dollars to replace broken merchandise, they institute rules about putting breakable merchandise on the bottom shelf. Simple measures like properly training workers and forcing them to wear safety equipment (boundaries), can keep costs down and a business solvent. You are performing the same function with him when you establish boundaries. Instead of little things building up until you melt down emotionally (broken machinery), you are training him how to properly operate your machinery, so to speak.

Of course he will still do some things to hurt the business intentionally for his own gain, maybe the emotional equivalent of embezzling money, but when he does those things intentionally, he has no problem with them. Just because he kicks around the furniture one time does not mean that he wants to be accidentally stubbing his toe two weeks later. So some "stern" things you say will just make him angry and defensive, but if your sternness is just a matter of routine maintenance to prevent catastrophe, he will welcome any advice from you just as you would welcome the advice of a trusted mechanic.

Almost sociopath (part 1)

From a female reader wondering where she falls on the sociopath spectrum:

I've been reading your blog from your first post on since I found it at the beginning of this week (still reading, expecting your book by end of week).  It's...fascinating.  But, more than that, it often times rings shockingly true.  I've spent years studying sociopaths, but given much out there was negative I'd frequently told myself "well I don't kill/rape/assault" and thus couldn't possibly be one.

This being said it seems highly possible I am.  I have done "bad" things - taken what wasn't mine, gone places I shouldn't have, destroyed psyches and lives - with nary a care in the world.  ...In fact even the "I don't assault" statement isn't entirely true given I'd been in a few fights; but they were non-chargeable incidents, disbelieved by others (no one believes the adorably pint-sized blue-eyed, blond, girl is capable of violence, especially when she targets bigger kids and boys), when I was young and they were often provoked or a playfulness that went awry...I thought I was playing, the other person found me to be physically bullying.  What I've always found most troubling - still do find most troubling - was how not troubled I was/am.  When my friends wept at movies I laughed, when they seemed horrified by the latest terrorist threat I shrugged, and when they grew cross at something in the news I simply did not see why they were making the fuss (after all, it did not personally affect them, did it?).  ...I used to torment my best friend thinking it was playful/it didn't bother her and hadn't a clue what I'd done was considered wrong/cruel until junior high when she wrote an explicit poem on how it made her feel...and then directly told me that the poem was about our interactions.

I slip in and out of interests and infatuations with both things and people without a second look back.  When asked what I love I simply gauge the people I'm with and go with the most satisfactory-to-them answer - with nerdy friends I like Lord of the Rings, with jock friends I like weight-lifting and kick-boxing, and on and on it goes.  This holds true for people as well...while I've had a small handful (3-5) of friends for years, since childhood, it seems due to not being able to keep any others.  I make friends fast, easily, but rarely keep them - they all just seem to slip away on me.  Of course I confess others have run off do to some game I played with/on them that they were not overly fond of.  Whatever the reason though I find I don't mind too much provided I didn't lose them to someone else - this holds overly true in the romance department; people don't leave me, I leave them, and I'll reconnect with exes just to ensure, in the end, I left them.

I cannot, for the life of me, say with any certainty what/who I, myself, love.  I have interests, yes, and can hold them for years upon years, at times almost obsessively I've been told, but loves?  ...I don't know...

After knowing me for a while some people have mentioned my...personality.  High school friends called me the Devil's puppy and said I was like the manipulative Katherine from Cruel Intentions (the modernized Dangerous Liaisons with Sarah Michelle Gellar).  Another friend noted that I was "the one that gets people to do things and then hides in the bushes, laughing, while the cops arrest them" (she was unaware at the time that I'd, in fact, done something just like that in my earlier youth...my then friend got kicked out of that store as a result, it was hilarious to me).  Even my grandmother declared "that's you!" as I read off some sociopathic traits I'd learned of.  My eyes have been mentioned once or twice, but only in positives (in that they were attractive) except from enemies who've noted I "stare right through" people...of course I don't know if they mean through like into the "soul" of or through like the other person wasn't there.

In argument for not having sociopathy: I am female (thus making it statistically less likely, so the research says).  I do understand sarcasm - which you mentioned would be hard for sociopaths - but there's a caveat on this one: I understand it in my family and close relations who use it with great frequency, I understand the kind I grew up on.  If I'm with someone new - a new friend, a new mate - I'm slower to pick it up...especially if written out without a winky/smiley emoticon or some other signifier that states the person is joking.  I also can at least speculate why another might cry should there be a stimulus for it around - she's crying because someone in the movie is dying - and have cried once or twice at movies myself (the greatest emotion attached to my crying though is frustration, even in a movie situation where I'm often finding something keenly unfair in the narrative towards a character I identify with in some way, but still I cry at a situation I know, logically, to be completely falsified...something I hate, the sense I'm being manipulated into a feeling, which is probably why I'll never watch a movie that's made me cry again).  ...Of course these might be due to years of experience and/or my exceptions, not my rules, in personality.  Not sure.

Worth the trouble

A lot of people wonder why anyone would be friends with a sociopath, or flat out assume that no one would want to be friends with a sociopath. The funny consequence to this mentality is that people assume that I must have no friends. The truth is that there are a lot of people who appreciate having me for a friend. I am not the type of person that they will come to if they just want a shoulder to cry on, but I am a great person to consult if there is a problem they want solved. I'm very good at coming up with workable strategies to help them accomplish whatever it is that they want. And I think a lot of my friends just appreciate my unique perspective, and even my amorality. I don't judge them, so they can be honest with me in a way that they can't really with most other people. People tell me a lot of secrets for that reason.

It's not even always the obviously positive or pro-social aspects of my personality that people are attracted to. I think sometimes they like the sort of negative or dangerous aspects of my personality -- the risk or excitement I bring to their life. Some of them are masochistic and like the pain. Some even like the ruining, perhaps because they want parts of them broken -- like breaking a jaw to reset it in better alignment. And I can see why too, so much of our personality is an accident of the way we were raised or the culture we were born into. Maybe we don't necessarily like those parts of ourselves and need a little help getting over them. You could see a therapist, or you could just enlist the help of your friendly neighborhood sociopath. That's why I found this recent email from a reader to be so interesting:

In high school I had a friend who was almost certainly a sociopath. He took pleasure in ruining people. I let him ruin me to a point. He tried to warn me in various ways. I paid no heed. But why not? I had something to gain by being 'ruined.' I was a painfully uptight young man. There were things I just wouldn't do. Under his influence, I did many of them and to my surprise, survived. He helped me with my scruples. (In Catholicism, 'scruples' refers to "An unfounded apprehension and consequently unwarranted fear that something is a sin which, as a matter of fact, is not.")  I'm much more relaxed now, though still basically uptight.

I'm drawn to sociopaths. They have something I need. The smart ones, the ones who don't end up in jail, have a delicate moral sense. They know where the lines are. They find my scruples amusing, as if to say "Oh you poor thing, that thing your afraid to do isn't a sin in anyone's book. Someone should let you out of your little cage."

I've often wondered why he tried to warn me. Wouldn't a totally evil person keep his bad intentions to himself? Yes. So again, why the warnings? Mainly, he wanted to be understood. Everyone needs to be understood. In my opinion, the effort to understand a sociopath, though fraught, is worth the trouble many times over.

When I read that, I thought maybe the sociopath respected his friend enough to get a sort of informed consent? Or found the friendship worth enough that he didn't want to necessarily lose the friend by making him a target, so wanted to make sure that the friend was at least aware of what was going to happen? What do people think?

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll

A reader suggested that I expand my emotional horizons by taking MDMA, the pure ingredient in the drug ecstasy. I told him that it was an interesting idea, but that I sort of already manipulate myself into feeling other emotions via film, music, art, etc., and I wasn't sure if it would be all that different. I certainly don't plan on becoming an ecstasy abuser, so I wouldn’t really know how expanded my emotional horizons would be with that drug. It was an interesting question, though, and reminded me of something another reader had asked, whether sociopaths like music and what effect drugs have on a sociopath. My response:

I don't know if I can speak for all sociopaths, but I love music. I was raised in a musical home and am a classically trained musician, and have participated in many popular music groups. I would imagine that other sociopaths would like it as well, depending on how open they are to exploring their emotional side. There's no doubt that music is manipulative, as is film (primarily because of the music in it?). The whole purpose of music seems to evoke some feeling or sensation in the audience. Music makes you feel things, if you let yourself get caught up in the experience. It can be a good way to learn about other people, allowing you to experience emotional experiences the way other people experience them or the way the composer/lyricist experienced them. Music is like a drug in some ways because it forces you to feel something different, which is another one of your questions. When I am taking mind altering substances, I feel like a detached observer noticing the differences in my brain chemistry, realizing that I now feel happier or sadder or whatever it is I am feeling, as if the feeling is being forced on me. I don't really like it. I don't feel like it is a welcome freedom from my inhibitions because I don't have inhibitions. If anything, it is the opposite of freedom; someone is playing with my mind, playing with me like a puppet on a string. Maybe that's just me, though. I could imagine that certain sociopaths or certain substances might be used more like the way I use music.

Okay, no sex I guess, just drugs and rock'n'roll.

Psychopath treatment: a success story

This was an interesting email sent to Jon Ronson, author of The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry, from a diagnosed psychopath who sought treatment (relatively successfully). Here are selections, links are mine and my comments in brackets:

Four years later, with sessions no less frequent than once or twice a week, I came out of therapy unrecognizable from when I went into it. 

Yes thearapy was transformative, though it is possible to overstate its impacts. I will always see the world through different lenses to much of the rest of the world. My emotional reactions are different, my endowments are impressive in some respects, not so in others, much like other people. 

It is also the case that, being ‘normal’ takes a degree of energy and conscious thought that is instinctive for most, but to me is a significant expenditure of energy. I think it analogous to speaking a second language. That is not to say I am being false or obfuscating, merely that I will always expose some eccentric traits. [I also find it to be taxing to interact with people legitimately because it's a very deliberate choice, a performance of sorts rather than a way of interacting that comes naturally to me.] 

So why am I writing all this to you?

Well, from someone who is both psychopathic and treated, there are many fallacies about psychopaths with which I am deeply cynical. Unfortunately psychopaths themselves do themselves no favors, as the label given to them plays into their ego over generously - ‘If we are born that way’ psychopaths reason, ‘then it is not wrong for us to be as we are, indeed we are the pinnacle of the human condition, something other people demonize merely to explain their fitful fears’. [It's so easy to think this way. It's so hard to acknowledge that the world might be a lot more complicated than you think it is, and people (everybody, really) a lot less stupid and a lot more valuable than you think they are. I had to be trained to see the world differently (by Ann, for those that have read the book).]

We are neither the cartoon evil serial killers, nor the ‘its your boss’ CEO’s always chasing profit at the expense of everyone else. While we are both of those things, it is a sad caricature of itself. 

We continue be to characterized that way, by media, by literature, and by ourselves, yet the whole thing is a sham. 

The truth is much, much more complex, and in my view, interesting.

Psychopaths are just people. You are right to say that psychopaths hate weakness, they will attempt to conceal anything that might present as a vulnerability. The test of their self-superiority is their ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it to its fullest potential.  

But that is not to say that this aspect of a psychopaths world view cannot be modified. These days I see weaknesses and vulnerabilities as simple facts - a facet of the human condition and the frailties and imperfections inheritent in being human. [I've talked about this here.]

At the same time it is true that my feelings and reactions to those around me are different - not necessarily retarded - just different. It is the image of psychopaths as something not quite human, along with espersions as to their natures, that prevent this from being identified. 

So how to explain these ‘different’ feelings?

Well, lets look at what (bright) psychopaths are naturally quite exceptional at… We are good at identifying, very rapidly, extreme traits of those around us which allows us to discern vulnerabilities, frailties, and mental conditions. It also makes psychopaths supreme manipulators, for they can mimick human emotions they do not feel, play on these emotions and extract concessions. 

But what are these traits really? - Stripped of its pejorative adjectives and mean application, it is a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning. 

What I’m saying here is that although those traits can very easily (even instinctively) lead to dangerous levels of manipulation, they do not have to. 

These days I enjoy a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct. I know where those traits come from, yet I have made the conscious choice to use them for the betterment of friends, aquaintences, and society. People confide in me extraordinary things because they know, no matter what, I will not be judging them. [I particularly relate with this paragraph.]

I do so because I know I have that choice. After years of therapy I am well equipped to act on it, and my keen perception is now directed equally towards myself. 

Its true that I do not ‘feel’ guilt or remorse, except to the extent that it affects me directly, but I do feel other emotions, which do not have adequate words of description, but nevertheless cause me to derive satisfacton in developing interpersonal relationships, contributing to society, and being gentle as well as assertive. 

Such as statement might tempt you to say ‘well obviously you’re not a real psychopath then’. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain. 
***
In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy; a willingness to understand the person, their drives, hopes, strengths and fears, along with knowledge of their own personal sadnesses and sense of inferiority…As it is, such cartoon, unchangeable, inhuman characterizations offers nothing but perpetuation of those stereotypes. 

Serial Killers & Ruthless CEOs exist - Voldemort does not. 

Overall I found his experience to be very similar to my own. He sought help at the beginning of his adulthood because he felt like he didn't have control over some of the things he thought and did. He was led through a paradigm shift by a trusted and wise individual (his therapist, my close friend) who first saw and understood him, then met him halfway and spoke his language rather than preaching at him in the foreign language of emotional morality. I don't think this is an easy process. His process took four years. Mine took about two, but of intense focus. I also know of a handful of people who have even gotten there on their own, though, so it definitely is possible. I actually hope that the book is really helpful that way, in terms of helping undiagnosed sociopaths to recognize themselves and also give them a message of hope. It's possible for sociopaths to train themselves to think and act in different ways. We will never be completely fluent or automatic in our empathy or moral reasoning, but with some accommodation we can be not only fully functioning in society, but successful and contributing members of society. 

Female sociopath

Female sociopaths are more hated than male sociopaths? I stumbled upon this post on LoveFraud from Lianne Leedom, psychiatrist, sociopath victim, and author of "Just Like His Father?" She also infamously threatened her child with going to "the dark place" as a punishment when he had an incredible phobia of the dark. Let her never be accused of being too soft on sociopaths (including her own son), she has plenty of vitriol and anecdotal evidence to spew about female sociopaths:

There is something inherently more repulsive and unbelievable about a female sociopath. Women by nature are preprogrammed to learn empathy and care-taking, the antithesis of sociopathic behavior. Indeed, one of the best indicators of sociopathy in a women is seen when the woman fails to care for her own child. It would seem then, that we would all be revolted by a female sociopath, so why do men become victims?

My own theory, which has been corroborated by many men who have written to Lovefraud, is that men accidentally fall victim to sociopathic women when they have sex with them. You see, normal men experience bonding just like normal women-especially when the sex is good. The sex with a female sociopath (I’m told) isn’t just good, it’s better than most mortal men have ever hoped for. Once hooked on the female sociopath, men become victims just as much as the women who become hooked on the male sociopath. Many male victims feel ashamed and emasculated. But, take heart guys, she actually preyed on the more masculine side of your nature, your enjoyment of sex!

So there you have it feminists, women who aren't natural care-takers are repulsive and revolting (because women are preprogrammed to learn empathy and care-taking), and it's a little shocking that men fall victim to them (because men are pretty clever, otherwise), but easily explainable because these women are obviously whores. Apparently most women either aren't good at sex or don't like it, so it's easy for sociopathic women to ensnare men with sex. But guys don't take it as a threat to your masculinity that she ultimately denied you ready access to sex because she's just a whore. Did I say whore? She was probably just after your money or something anyway, because that's how whores operate, and she's clearly a whore.

Leedom's focus on the female sociopaths is almost entirely on their ability to raise children, please their man, and/or extract money or privileges for sex. If this is not the definition of anti-feminism, I don't know what is.

What about other aspects of a female sociopath? My guess is that they can be very successful in their careers. Not only would they have the same potential advantages of male sociopaths (ruthless, fearless, power-hungry and ambitious), but because they don't fully identify with their gender, they might be less influenced by some of the defeating (and self-defeating) "lessons" that young girls are taught about a woman's place in the world. They wouldn't be socialized to want particularly things and not others like a lot of women seem to be. Also they might not readily seem themselves as a victim (as society is so quick to portray women), but rather someone who acts and accepts responsibility for herself, empowered? We really don't know what female sociopaths look like in general because there has been next to no research done on female sociopaths. But it's very disappointing to see bald stereotypes perpetuated such little obvious personal slant and moral prejudice by someone claiming to be a medical professional and expert on sociopaths. 

Unleashing our power of seduction

Seduction gets a bad rap, as argued by Chen Lizra in her TED talk "The Power of Seduction in Our Everyday Lives."


The goal of her talk is to get people to see seduction as a valuable life skill. She thinks everyone can learn how to seduce, particularly when they start young. She talks about how the term seduction has been so sexualized that most people do not think that it could be a positive skill set. People think that seduction is a less honest or acceptable form of influence. People who have been seduced feel like they have been manipulated. Men are given more leeway to seduce and when it comes to work and seduction, people immediately think that you are sleeping your way to the corner office. These negative aspects of seduction are not inherent in seduction, but rather is neutral -- seduction can be used for all sorts of reasons, according to Lizra she uses it to be "classy" and "add to it" her sense of loyalty and integrity. At it's most basic, it is power. "Seduction is about charm, connection, vulnerability, pride, self confidence, and appeal."

Seduction formula

1. Desire -- knowing what you want and having the courage to go after it. "Keeping the maybe alive is a skill of presenting potential possibilities and then fueling them with desire. It's about learning where the emotional buttons are and then triggering them." The key is to look for what the other person is missing, then give it to them, and it's almost impossible for someone to say no to that.
2. Confidence -- Our self image is formed at an early age and is deeply affected by environment, e.g. since there is no advertising in Cuba their self image is not distorted. "Cubans grow up feeling intense pride and self confidence no matter what body size or shape they might have." Because, it turns out, that there is no objective beauty and to the extent we enforce particular standards of beauty we have allowed ourselves to be influenced into doing so by external forces? 
3. Body language -- "It makes it really easy to seduce and be seduced because you know what the other person is feeling."
4. Arousal -- You must "wake up in them the desire to give you what you want and lure it out." "You must give it your undivided attention in the moment." Fearlessness is key, because then a "no that was a maybe turns into a yes." 

"Everyone has the power to seduce in them" "Seduction is a skill no matter how you look at it. You can call it wooing, persuading, winning someone over, charming, it doesn't matter." The key is to "build the connection that gets you what you want." 

Is Twisted's Danny Desai a sociopath?

Twisted, an ABC Family teenage murder mystery drama along the same lines as their Pretty Little Liars, has a potential (likely?) sociopathic teenage protagonist -- Danny Desai. It's so likely that Danny is a sociopath that the original working title for the show was "Socio" and the abbreviation gets thrown around at least once an episode, along with plenty of accusations that he is a sociopath from his teenage peers, some amusingly framed in amusing pop culture references to The Good Son, The Bad Seed, and We Need to Talk About Kevin.

The show begins with Danny, now sixteen years old, having just been released from juvenile detention for having killed his aunt when he was eleven years old, starting high school with his former peers. In the pilot another girl gets murdered and Danny's past history (and the convenient timing of the second girl's murder) make him a prime suspect both in the eyes of the police and the townspeople. But perhaps the show comes closest to acknowledging that Danny is a sociopath when his mother goes to visit his court ordered therapist:

Mother: "So, how's he doing?"

Dr.: "Well, he's a smart young man."


Mother: "Yes he is. Dr. Reidy, I'm sure that you've heard of some of the hateful words people have been calling Danny... monster, freak, sociopath..."

Dr.: "I wouldn't let it get to you Mrs. Desai. It's a heightened time."


Mother: Oh I know, but as a mother, how should I respond to people calling him that. [Pause] I'm not being clear. What are the signs that someone is a sociopath, so that I can explain why Danny isn't one?"


Dr.: "Most sociopaths don't murder anyone, but they do exhibit glibness, superficial charm, an easy ability to lie."

Mother: "Right."


Dr.: "Let's see, what else, they love risk, they don't consider consequences, they have a talent for imitating human emotion -- grief, joy. It's never real, but they're good at making you believe it is. Is that helpful Mrs. Desai?"


The funny part is that Danny actually did murder someone, along with exhibiting all of the other traits of a sociopath that his therapist mentioned. But his mom stands by him, even after having her suspicions about his sociopathy essentially confirmed. She even helps (she thinks) him cover up another possible murder.

Even if Danny is not a sociopath, it's an interesting exploration of a teenage boy living with the stigma of having murdered someone (or at least having been convicted of murder), and how he deals with that (spoiler alert, by alternating violent outbursts against his enemies and charming himself back into the hearts of his already smitten followers), and how his friends and family deal with it (almost unwavering support). That he is such a likeable character (unambiguously so if Twitter is any indication) suggests that the millennial generation (the audience for this particular show) might be the first generation to really accept and even embrace sociopaths in their own lives. So, that's hopeful.

Manipulate like a spy

A reader sent me this Forbes article covering the book "Work Like a Spy: Business Tips from a Former CIA Officer" by former spy J.C. Carleson.


Bits from the article:

• “When I talk about manipulation, people get squeamish,” she says. “For CIA officers, ‘manipulate’ isn’t a bad word. It’s not a cynical mindset. It’s a proactive approach to exploiting opportunities.”
• You won’t be able to manipulate yourself into a promotion without basic competence. “I recommend that people start on paper,” says Carleson. “Establish a baseline of competence in your work product. Then build the relationships.”
• Carleson says CIA officers attempting to recruit a spy use what they call a “hook,” which has three parts: a reason to meet once, a reason to connect and a reason to continue meeting. The same process applies when trying to connect with a decision maker, she says—but ditch the elevator pitch. Once you have their attention, she advises not to sell yourself. Instead, connect with the person based on a common interest.
• “People tend to make decisions based on assumptions,” she says. “Understand their vulnerabilities.”
• People like to talk about themselves, she says. By asking questions and listening carefully to the answers, you can reflect back their values as your own.

Pro-social sociopath? (part 2)

So here's what people had to say regarding the legitimate foundations for the negative stigma against sociopaths (hit me up again if you feel like I've missed yours):

• The issue is that you willingly and knowingly manipulate people to meet your own selfish desires and needs, with little regard for the well-being of your targets. 

Ok yes, this is admittedly ugly behavior and I try to not do this extensively/non-consensually/harmfully anymore for various reasons, not least of which is that it is toxic to relationships and I've started to acknowledge that in dehumanizing others, I devalue my own self  However, I'm not sure the "knowing" manipulation of the sociopath (how conscious and intentional does it have to be?) is much worse than the unknowing selfish manipulation that is commonplace in all humanity. No one behaves selflessly all of the time. Every empath chooses to intentionally hurt or manipulate another at some point in their lives (and sometimes regularly). They suffer the consequences (eventually) and so do sociopaths (even though, admittedly, sociopaths probably won't be as broken up about rocky relationship troubles as an empath would).

• You may make people feel better about themselves, and they may love to have your attention and interest, but you are deceiving them, planting the seeds of false hope that the average person would accept them for who they are. Social dictums are as good as law, and you encourage people to break them by accepting what should be unacceptable. You're not doing them any favors. Failure to adhere to social norms has very real consequences, and it is in every individual's best interests to conform in order to be happy and comfortable in life.

This is crazy. So the husband who tells his wife, "you're the most beautiful woman in the world" when really most people would consider her to have average looks is setting her up for a lifetime of false hope and accompanying failure?

• But to lie at the person encouraging her handicap it is not pro-social; you are not doing that person a favor at all.

Hilarious, I'd love to see someone tell an overweight person that they have a handicap ("fatness") to their face. There is nothing inherently (and particularly not morally or even socially) wrong with carrying a little extra weight and wearing clothing that most would consider unflattering. Despite that being true, many normal people would make the girl's appearance their own business somehow, whereas the sociopath would think (rightly) that it is no concern of his. So the sociopath is not being a fraud or perpetuating a scam by pretending to not care when really he is bothered by the girl's weight -- he sincerely does not care. And is it devious to be nice to someone because you know they'll be nice in return? No, at least according to the Sesame Street-esque lessons on good manners I remember from my childhood.

• The fact that the pure selfishness of the sociopath might have sometimes accidentally benefits for others, don’t make them any kinder, because their intentions are not kind.

Pro-social does not necessarily mean kind and vice versa. Is it kind to share child sex slaves with your friends? Maybe. Is it pro-social? Probably not. Is it kind to open a sandwich shop across the street from an existing restaurant? Probably not. Is it pro-social? Yes, society benefits from the competition and increased variety of eating options.

• Sociopaths behave as the worse type of xenophobes. They do a selection according on how exploitable somebody can be for them, and in this selection there are parameters like class, income, origins, etc.

No, this makes sociopaths the ultimate meritocrats, where people are judged on actual value (to the sociopath, of course, but of course there is no objective value for anything in this world, least of all for people).

• Where things become ethically problematic in my mind is if that positive interaction opens a door to exploitation of the tube top girl.

What would exploitation look like in this scenario? If there is something to exploit in propping up the girl's self-esteem, it's because normal people have chosen (irrationally) to tear it down in the first place. It's like saying that someone who gives a member of a disenfranchised class of persons a job is exploiting them by benefiting from their work when that disenfranchised person could probably have gotten a better job somewhere else (or even a better career) if they were not disenfranchised. The problem here is not the sociopath being normal to the fat girl, but everyone else treating her as less than her true value. (This is similar to the way that value stock traders "exploit" the systematic underpricing of certain stocks by buying low and selling high, which is also pro-social because it helps the market reflect the true value of stocks.)

• Empathy is the essential ingredient needed for the healthy emotional growth of a child.

Maybe, but this is far from certain and not at all proved. I think there's a big difference from a wire monkey and an actual human being who just happens to not feel empathy.

That's all I saw for reasons how or why the stigma/stereotype for sociopaths is founded. If you missed this opportunity or I missed yours, just email. Otherwise, it seems like the there are not as many legitimate reasons to hate sociopaths as previously thought?

Pro-social sociopath?

I've said a lot of times that sociopaths are not necessarily malicious, and frequently act in pro-social ways (even perhaps predominantly, when you factor in the millions of things they do each day like stopping at stop signs or covering their mouth when they sneeze). Just because they don't feel guilt or don't see the world in terms of black/white, right/wrong, doesn't mean that they wouldn't choose to do good things or even necessarily derive any pleasure from being "mean". A reader writes:

A friend of mine recently asked me why a sociopath would go out of his/her way to either avoid creating or work to resolve issues with close friends and family, in which the sociopath has offended them. To answer this I came up with an interesting analogy I thought you might enjoy hearing and possibly commenting on.

For a moment imagine your life as an apartment, and the friends, family, and significant others you have chosen to allow in your life are your pets. Now every so often, regardless of how diligent you are, one of your pets is going to make a mess on the carpet. Whether you or the pet are at fault for the mess is irrelevant, because when it comes down to it your apartment now smells a little worse. So you have two choices, ignore the mess, and continue on with your life (which is the preferred result), or clean it up. So why do we clean it up? Because very few people like their place smelling of shit, and if enough pets make a mess it's going to get pretty unbearable. However, that doesn't mean we enjoy cleaning it up, it's just a necessary (yet unfortunate) action that must be done to maintain a clean healthy apartment. Of course you can always get rid of the pet when it makes a mess... but then what will you have to play with?

It's very (most?) often in the sociopath's best interest to act in pro-social, or at least friendly ways. I used this recent analogy to someone. Let's say that someone is fat but doesn't act like it -- fat girl in a tube top  confidence. Other people might feel awkward about this girl. She is clearly violating the social norms that demand that she feel some measure of shame about her body and/or clothing choices. Maybe they feel embarrassed for her, particularly if they feel like she just doesn't realize how bad she looks (same reason people feel embarrassed when someone else has something stuck in their teeth? I always get a little annoyed when people insist that I get something out of my teeth, particularly when they behave as if it is an act of supreme selflessness. I'm fine with something being in my teeth, if it bothers you, at least be honest that you are selfish enough to insist that I change my behavior/appearance to suit you better). Another popular reaction is for people to get angry with the fat girl and try to overtly shame her. I find both of these reactions to be completely puzzling. If she is not embarrassed for herself, why be embarrassed for her? There is no objective "truth" about what is or is not beautiful (and aesthetic preferences regarding corpulence vary widely when compared across time and culture). And why harass her? Is it because she has offended their delicate sensibilities? Is that why they have quickly deputized themselves members of the social norm enforcement police? Because even if they find her look to be unappealing, others might not share their same opinion.

How would a sociopath react to the fat girl in a tube top. I think people think that sociopaths would be the meanest of the mean. But what benefit is there to a sociopath in being mean, even exceptionally so? There would be much greater value to the sociopath in being friendly and propping up the girl's self-esteem. Now she feels like they have commonality. The sociopath has made a friend, and if the girl wants to keep getting the validation from the sociopath, she will be a loyal and dedicated friend. Of course this approach involves some degree of manipulation because the sociopath is more consciously choosing to present himself as a friendly ally, and not for some more lofty goal of crusading on behalf of the weight-challenged. But does that make his action any less pro-social? Or any less a welcome response from the fat girl? Rather, it is itself a form of implicit validation -- despite you being fat, I still think you're worthwhile enough to have as a friend. In other words, a sociopath sees your value clearly, without common prejudices or xenophobic knee jerk rejection, and still chooses to associate himself with you. If you were someone who is frequently marginalized from society, who would you prefer to interact with?

I'm not saying that sociopaths can never be "mean" (can sociopaths ever be unreasonable? maybe they just all seem reasonable to me because we share the same worldview?). They can do bad things and they should be held responsible for their actions in the exact same way that everyone else is held responsible for their actions (me included, of course). But to make generalizations about sociopaths always acting in anti-social ways and never benefiting society is willful ignorance of the facts. The unique traits of a sociopath are going to make them both "nicer" and "meaner" than normal people. To ignore the former in favor of focusing on the latter is disingenuous -- it distorts the truth in a manipulative way that seems clearly calculated to perpetuate negative and largely unfounded stereotypes.* 

*If you think these stereotypes are founded, please share specifically what you believe that foundation consists of so I can address them. Or if you don't want to speak in generalities, tell me what I do (currently, preferably) that seems so singularly wrong such that I have earned the negative stereotype and deserve to be punished. I have no problem engaging in an open and honest dialogue about all aspects or implications of sociopathy, including "bad" ones, with a focus on provable facts rather than baseless slander. I like learning truth, even if it means I've been wrong, and will keep an open-mind.

Benefiting from sociopaths

I have gotten a lot of pushback from a statement that I make in the book: "I believe that most people who interact with sociopaths are better off than they otherwise would be." I don't necessarily mean it in the sense that the sociopath has directly benefited the person in a specific way, although I don't think that's an entirely outrageous statement either. When I think of the percentages of people I have harmed (even unintentionally) with the number of people that I have benefited in some small way, from things as small as holding a door open for them (people love good manners) to getting them a job (I love it when people owe me favors even more than I like them repaying those favors), the scale tips drastically in the direction of positive -- maybe 99.9% of people I interact with benefit in some small way?

Yes, true, those that are harmed tend to be harmed in larger ways than the corresponding benefit of having someone open a door for you. But even the people who get harmed benefit from their interactions with a sociopath in a way. They have the choice of either wallowing in the role of a victim or of taking the opportunity to learn from the experience (and who better to teach you about yourself than a sociopath). It's a little bit like how surviving cancer can give someone a healthier outlook on life. Life is filled with challenges and suffering. We will never eliminate it, and there are a lot of unintended negative consequences when we try (see Taleb's Antifragile). Even when we do successfully eliminate bad things from our lives, we invent new reasons to be upset -- so-called "first world problems". When we overcome challenges, even when they come in the form of a sociopath, we come out stronger. If there was never any opposition to your worldview or no one around to exploit the sloppiest of your mental shortcuts or delusions about the way the world works, then your mind (and our society, think Rome) would atrophy the same way your muscles do when they're not used. Hitting the gym is hard and can even be painful, but the result is a stronger you.

A reader said something similar:

I just finished reading your book... And wow.  I'm not a sociopath - I have very definite negative feelings.  

Several years ago, I was "ruined" by someone I believe is a sociopath.  A lot of what you described in the book fits her quite well, though she's never had (to my knowledge, at least) a professional diagnosis.  Her manipulation and seduction of my (at the time) fiance wound up destroying my relationship with him shortly before we were supposed to get married.  Now...well, if I still knew how to get in touch with her, I might thank her for what she did.  She didn't do it out of the kindness of her heart, obviously, but I'm now in a much better and happier relationship with a new man, and while I've had difficulty trusting some people after that incident, my life is better than it had been before I met this sociopath.

It's hard being an empath, honestly.  I'm a bit on the cold side of people without sociopathic tendencies; I can analyze cost/benefit and act on that.  It's my preferred method of engaging with the world.  But emotions can come into play, especially guilt and poor self-image.  I live with a young woman who lets her emotions so fully control her actions that she has no life direction, no job, no ability to stay focused on any one thing for more than a couple months at a time (in the past year she's decided she wants to be a vet, a pediatrician, a pathologist, and now a specialist in herpetology so that she could work at zoos).  Her ability to feel emotions is damaging to her ultimate well-being.

It's terrifying for us, to think about sociopaths who are good at manipulating and enjoy manipulating, because we lie to ourselves and pretend that we don't manipulate others and others aren't actively manipulating us.  But that's not true.  I know how to manipulate my husband into doing what I want. I don't always, but I have that power.  And he knows how to manipulate me into doing what he wants.  He doesn't always choose to do so.  The difference is that in our viewpoint, sociopaths don't feel obligated to buy into and perpetuate that lie.  

Reading your book was a very uncomfortable thing for me because you were so honest.  But I learned a long time ago that the discomfort I'm feeling is because I learned to view the world in a slightly different way.  I can't just sit back and pretend that sociopaths are nameless, faceless people out in the world.  By putting your own voice out there, I was able to engage with you, the author of the book, and understand your unique self at least a little bit.  I received a wealth of understanding from reading this book, and now I need to take the time to ponder.

Reading your book was a terrific, frightening, wonderful experience.  I cannot think about sociopaths in the same way anymore.  So thank you.

Why we need psychopaths (part 2)

Regarding emotions and manipulation:


As psychopaths become less associated with demonic bloodlust a more accurate image is formed of just what this set of symptoms really looks like. They have “shallow emotions” which simply means their emotions are much less intense than non-psychopaths (DSM-IV-TR (2000) 4th ed., text. rev.). To demonstrate, imagine that a company is interviewing candidates to fill a vacant position. After several mediocre interviews, the recruiters are introduced to a charismatic, energetic, intelligent and striking woman whose credentials align perfectly with the job description. Obviously she is hired on the spot. Her low emotionality keeps her calm under pressure and cool-headed when resolving conflicts with co-workers. She’s able to make critical decisions for the company because “it’s not personal; it’s a business decision,” and has no problem sleeping at night while putting hundreds of employees out of work. Some of her co-workers go home emotionally exhausted after a day of rejected sales attempts, but not her. Little do they know her attractive outwardly appearance merely serves as a cover for the hollow shell within. Emotional detachment and regulation are important while in a business setting but for psychopaths their emotions are consistently “turned down.”

The flip side to this would be someone who is overemotional, which is often synonymous with “irrational.” This is why people are granted bereavement time from work. When mourning the loss of a loved one, they will be overcome by emotion and unable to concentrate effectively on their job duties. In some careers, such carelessness can be dangerous. It is this same extreme emotional state that sets the stage for crimes of passion because emotions have a tendency to distort reasoning - unbalanced emotions overwhelm balanced judgment (Hare 1999). For psychopaths, problems are evaluated in black and white terms with very little “gray area” distortion. Factor in the other leading characteristic, lack of empathy, and it is understandable why they describe having an “unburdened mind.” (Thomas 2013)

Psychopaths compensate for these deficits by learning to be experts on human behavior and honing their ability to mimic appropriate emotions. This overcompensation is often described as “deception” and “manipulation” in diagnostic criteria, but it is the same concept as “impression management” techniques regular people frequently utilize (DSM-IV-TR (2000) 4th ed., text. Rev). It is also called social masks in some literature. This is the idea that people slightly alter their personality depending on the situation they are in, thus “playing to the crowd” (Hare 1999). An example would be maintaining a professional appearance and demeanor while at work but “being yourself” at home. Adolescents or even young adults may use crude language in front of their friends but refrain in the presence of their families. Trying to show your best attributes during a first date and gradually “letting your guard down” describes the same concept. This could be “making a good impression” or being manipulative and deceptive depending upon perspective.

Regardless of one’s opinion of such practice, another important part of impression management and successful social interaction is learning to display proper emotion at certain times with appropriate intensity. Failing to display appropriate social cues can be off-putting and uncomfortable for the people who would describe this person as “hard to read.” So people learn to smile on cue, chuckle at a joke whether it is humorous or not, feign concern over a matter that doesn’t genuinely trouble anyone but the people involved, and so on. This process is generally automatic although errors occur occasionally, which is called “sending mixed signals.” It could be chalked up to having good manners and refined social skills but just how much feigned emotion people can handle is debatable. At what point is a person accused of “putting on a show” or being “fake?” When someone’s ego is at risk of injury they attempt to “save face” or avoid negative action. There is not a clearly defined manual for impression management and some pull it off better than others.

Fish in a barrel

How to seduce a sociopath

I've address this topic before, but never to my satisfaction. I've never had a good answer, always thinking that people were incapable of doing it -- that if they had it in them to do it, they would have just done it. But one of my friends wanted to seduce someone they believe is sociopathic. And because I know her a little better and the nature of her strengths and weaknesses, I thought that maybe I had a better chance of coming up with something than I have before. And here's what I told her:


I've been thinking about the best tactic for you to seduce your maybe sociopath boss. I was thinking that sociopaths are intrigued when people they know change, like not just an off day sort of temporary change, but start acting differently pretty consistently. That should renew their interest in you, because they thought they had you pegged but you turn out to be more dynamic than they had considered. And I think they are also intrigued when people share their same traits, because they are, after all, narcissists. So I was thinking that maybe you could work on one particular trait that is similar to a sociopath and really make it a daily focus for the next few weeks and see how that works.

The thing that I think will be most helpful for you, and in a Karate Kid paint the fence sort of way improve your manipulation skills, is to focus on exploring every aspect of yourself. You know how sometimes they tell golfers to focus on what their pinky toe feels like in the moment that they start their swing? Always be thinking of yourself. When you talk to people, think of what your upper right prefrontal cortex must feel like. When you are eating, be aware of the size and shape of your tongue. Think about things you have not thought about yourself in years, if ever. Feel the bottom of your lungs, the roots in your teeth. Become aware of your eyes in their socket. When you shower, truly regard yourself in a frank fashion. You are a marvel, a wonder of engineering. You are a god. Your body is amazing and your brain is unfathomable.  Explore the spectrum of your feelings. Can you think yourself to tears? To bliss? Explore every single inch of your physical, emotional, and mental self with the sort of curiosity that a walking miracle such as yourself deserves. And you control this thing. Let yourself become heady with the thought of your power over this awesome thing that is you. 

This is the sort of self regard that sociopaths have about themselves. If you do this you will act differently, and he will notice. He will also recognize, and admire, that you two now share this trait.

I think this will at least renew his interest in you. Once that happens, maybe we think about you trying some more advanced things to get him to understand the nature of your desire.

Fake it till you make it

From a reader:

recently, with xmas on it's way i've started to ponder a little on this subject. i rarely buy gifts for my family, i never saw the point, even with those who gave to me i'd just claim to be broke and it's not like i care about what my family thinks because i don't really want a relationship with any of them, at least, i don't really care whether they are part of my life in the future when i move out ect... (i'm a teenager). i thought a couple of your recent posts were of some relevance, like when you used to go shoplifting, i'm curious about your thought process behind stopping. do you get narcissistic satisfaction from doing things in a legit, socially acceptable manner? were you afraid of getting caught? and did you see something to be gained from changing (like the incentive to go out and earn more money)? personally i thought incentive, gain and even the fear of getting caught would work best but maybe it's a good form of self-control for sociopaths to indulge in a little narcissism, even if i didn't care about something beforehand i'd actually start to feel for it if i simply just started acting in that way, maybe that's why your past seems to emotionally contradict your current self? but it begs the question, where can you draw the line between self-help and self-delusion?

My response:

This -- "even if i didn't care about something beforehand i'd actually start to feel for it if i simply just started acting in that way" is so true. Biologically we know it is true, for whatever reason when we smile we actually get happier. I sometimes coach friends on how to become better speakers and get them to speak in front of me to the point where they seem relaxed. I then take note of the things that they do or say, how they position their body, etc., while they are relaxed. I tell them -- do these things when you speak in public and the very act of doing them will signal to your brain to relax. It is starting to become apparent that our brain is more plastic than scientists have traditionally believed. Every day, every thing that we do is wiring and re-wiring our brain and (I think) for people like us it is even a bigger deal because we don't have the same sorts of mental rigidities and concrete self-concepts that other people seem to have.

With that said, it is very difficult to fight the tide, so to speak. If your current incentives encourage being a jerk to your family (for whatever reason), you probably don't have the willpower to treat them nicely. If you really want to change a behavior and it is impossible to change your physical incentive structures (whatever would be the equivalent of taking antabuse in your situation), you might still be able to change your perspective. Our brains only process a small fraction of what we encounter. The way we see the world will always be distorted, but it is not a static sort of distortion. We can nudge ourself to see the world in a different sort of distorted way that benefits us. People do it all of the time to become more happy and optimistic with things like gratitude journals, or they become depressed and suicidal by doing the opposite. You can easily learn to love or hate something because, as you say "even if i didn't care about something beforehand i'd actually start to feel for it if i simply just started acting in that way".

Deconstructing performances

Photo by Gavin Whitner.

I grew up in a family of musicians and we would regularly go see all sorts of musical and dramatic performances. Always on the trips back home we would deconstruct whatever it was that we had just seen or heard, a particularly powerful performance or a flubbed line. We had been trained to see things with a critical eye and this was our opportunity to participate ourselves in the performance and show off for each other. I used to love giving some insight that would elicit praise and agreement from my parents and siblings. I was proud to have discriminating taste. But I also enjoyed hearing others' opinions. They were teaching me to look for things I wouldn't have otherwise seen, listen for things I wouldn't otherwise have heard. Once I became a performer myself, these sessions were doubly interesting to me because they would validate my own performance choices, or point out areas for improvement -- pricking my pride and feeding the flame of my ambition. And that's what made any of these performances interesting to me -- my own engagement with them during, but especially being able to savor them after.

It's funny, I have always had the impulse to "dish" with people after things. That's one of the few truly worthwhile things about having at least a few friends who are gossipy fishwives.

In my relationships I always have this moment of "big reveal," where I feel like it is suddenly ok to rehash all initial encounters, at the time fraught with uncertainty and intrigue, and give the backstories and internal monologues that were hidden at the time ("I was so worried when you found out about X, but luckily I had the idea to play it off as Y"). I love to brag about things -- how I seduced them, or marked them as a target long before I was even on their radar. The actual dance steps of a relationship are an ok distraction for me, but the true pleasure is getting to deconstruct it all with the person months or years later.

Last night, coming home from a performance with someone I am currently engaged with, I realized the parallel between my childhood performance critiques and my adult relationship rehashings -- I am performing in relationships. I guess everybody does, but my main interest is not just to acquire the other person, but to perform the process beautifully. Without the promise of having an audience (even of only one or two), I don't think I would care to engage.

Sociopaths = communication skills

I was joking with friends the other night about seduction. We each took turns describing how we would seduce the other, if we wanted. I was impressed with some of the good ideas. For instance (caveat -- not too soon into a relationship or it will ruin the effect), take the person to an event or location, or participate in an activity in which the target is no longer in his/her comfort zone -- culturally, socially, or even related to their sense of physical safety and well-being. With the proper preparation, your target will be forced to rely on you, and will have to trust you to help them navigate the situation successfully. After instilling this sense of unease and reliance in your target and after successful completion of the task, let things take a turn for the very physical. Their adrenaline and fight or flight senses should still be up from the challenge, so things will seem very exciting and intense to them.

As we continued talking, though, it was clear that I differed from most people in thinking that a broken heart is its own reward, whereas other people use seduction more as a means to an end -- a happy, successful, intimate relationship. One person wondered at what would be the point of keeping up a charade indefinitely. What point, indeed. Although I derive a good deal of pleasure from playing games, I know that there are certain things, certain life experiences or levels of trust, that games cannot provide. That doesn't mean that my hard-won skills are useless, though. I like to use the analogy of hitting a golf ball with a strong lateral wind. Your first inclination, before you notice the wind, is to hit the golf ball essentially straight. When you take the wind into consideration, though, you realize that to hit the target you seek, you have to skew the trajectory from the start. The same can be true of good communication. If you know that your listener/audience has certain prejudices or sensitivities, it is foolish to not take these into account. If you are trying to communicate to someone in that situation, you must imagine what your listener is hearing, rather than what you are actually saying. Keep tweaking your intended speech until you have accomplished your true goal in communication -- communicating a particular idea to a particular person, rather than just saying what you mean to say. Yes that is manipulation, but it is also just good communication.

Sociopaths recognizing each other and manipulation

A reader asks whether sociopaths can recognize each other, and what's the deal with sociopath charm and knowing the right thing to say, etc.:

I think sociopaths can recognize each other. I imagine it's like con artists stumbling across each other -- there are so many shared tricks, that it's easy to see part of yourself in the other person. But not all sociopaths are the same, so that wouldn't be universally true, and I think some sociopaths are more open about manipulation, etc. than others. So it depends. But I have found other sociopaths by doing a delicate dance of disclosure and eliciting information before sharing my own. But there could be others that I have just never known about, so it is hard to say what percentage of sociopaths I am successfully able to detect.

Manipulation is a lot about reading the other people for their reactions in a trial and error sort of way. Imagine the best "yes men." They pretty much just throw out a lot of opinions, see which one their target seems to latch onto, and then reemphasize that particular one. Most people are expecting to see some things and not others, so you just watch for those signs in their face. If it seems like you are getting off, you'll see a look of confusion or disgust, after which you quickly backpedal and go the opposite way. Otherwise you'll see signs of apathy or approval. I imagine it is a lot like a blind man feeling his way through an unfamiliar room. I do the same thing in interviews or first dates, and I think everyone does it to a certain extent. We sort of give vague answers to feel people out and avoid committing on anything until the other person commits first.

Hmm, what are some of my favorite manipulation movies/books? Housesitter, Dangerous Liaisons, Being John Malkovich... also The Art of Seduction and The 48 Laws of Power are very good resources. I do categorize people, but don't really have standard lines the same way pick up artists or con artists seem to have. So I guess it is more intuitive, and by that I mean there is an excessive amount of data mining going on in a seemingly innocent conversation. Or if I'm feeling lazy, or am in a group, I put on a show for everyone, tell some charming story, or engage the group in the story of someone else there -- trying to be a curator of the interesting, the cultural, the entertaining. Actually I was just talking with a friend who knows what I am and she said she sometimes wishes she could be me in group settings -- always entertaining, charming, intoxicating. My gut tells me it can be taught, and those resources I mention above are starting points. The real thing keeping most people from being charming, I think, is that they are unwilling to devote their entire energy and attention to someone else. They remain afraid that they are not coming off well, or self conscious, or whatever else it is that keeps people from diving into a role, so they never can be as affective as someone who can keep the focus entirely on the other person. I don't know to what extent that can be learned...

Gullibility

I thought this was an interesting video from illusionist Derren Brown about gullibility, via Brain Pickings:



"Somewhat counterintuitively, it’s the more trusting people that actually emerge as less gullible. They obviously get fooled, as we all do… but they tend to be very good at learning from those experiences where they have been duped, they tend not to generalize it over everybody and then to start being cynical about everything, which then makes them more effective socially."

"You create a false logic. You create what appears to be an A, B, C. . . . That's not about gullibility, that's about a certain grammar that people will follow. . . . We can't function unless we form those patterns . . . . It's better to have that false positive than a false negative. . . . We are hardwired to fall for that . . . . it's pretty much inescapable and ultimately probably positive."

I found this relevant for two main reasons:

1. A lot of people either write me or come on here and feel like an idiot for having bought into the "lie" that their sociopath spun for them. I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, I don't know that it is necessarily a lie, and also I don't believe these sociopath slayer types who say that they are so skeptical that say they always spot sociopaths and beat them at their own game (whatever that means).

2. I actually think sociopaths tend to be gullible in surprising ways. That's why I think that feeding them false information, particularly about areas that are their natural blind spots like the emotional worlds of others, is effective. I know others have disputed this point with me before, but it at least works on me.