Liar, liar

One thing I am always a little surprised by is how horrified people are of the idea of sociopath mask-wearing and lying. Doesn't everybody? The main difference seems to be what sorts of things people bother to lie about? Maybe not even that? From the New Yorker blog's "How to Tell When Someone is Lying":

People lie all the time. According to the psychologist Robert Feldman, who has spent more than four decades studying the phenomenon, we lie, on average, three times during a routine ten-minute conversation with a stranger or casual acquaintance. Hardly anyone refrains from lying altogether, and some people report lying up to twelve times within that time span. I might open a conversation, for instance, by saying how nice it is to meet someone—when I’m really not at all happy about it. I might go on to say that I grew up in Boston—a lie, technically, since I really grew up in a small town about forty minutes outside the city. I could say that the person’s work sounds fascinating, when it’s no such thing, or compliment him on his (drab) tie or his (awful) shirt. And if the person mentions loving a certain downtown restaurant where I’ve had a terrible experience? I’m likely to just smile and nod and say, Yes, great place. Trust me: we often lie without giving it so much as a second thought.

We lie in most any context—Feldman’s work has turned up frequent lies in relationships ranging from the most intimate (marriage) to the completely casual. Some lies are small (“You look like you’ve lost a bit of weight”) and some bigger (“I did not have sex with that woman”). Sometimes they are harmless, and sometimes they are not.

Interestingly, although it is very difficult to become a personal lie-detector, studies suggest that people are pretty ok at subconsciously detecting lying:

In a series of studies, out this month in the journal Psychological Science, the Berkeley team had students watch a video of a possible criminal who was being questioned about stealing a hundred dollars. As in an actual interrogation, the suspect responded to both baseline questions (“What are you wearing?” “What’s the weather like outside?”) and target questions (“Did you steal the money?” “Are you lying to me right now?”). Half of the potential criminals were lying; half were telling the truth. Each participant watched one truthful and one deceptive video.

Next, the students completed a simple assessment: Were the pleaders in the videos telling the truth? Just as in prior studies, ten Brinke’s subjects, when asked direct questions, did no better than chance at determining who was truthful and who wasn’t.

But then the students participated in one of two unconscious lie-detection tasks. In each, they saw still photos of the two pleaders alongside words that were associated with either truth, such as “honest” and “genuine,” or lies, such as “deceitful” and “dishonest.” Their goal was to categorize the words as indicative of either truth or lies, as quickly and accurately as possible, regardless of the face they saw along with it. If “genuine” flashed on the screen, they would press a button to classify it as a truth-category word as soon as possible.

When the researchers dug deeper, they saw that the participants’ unconscious instinct fared far better: in both studies, they were significantly faster at properly categorizing lie- and truth-related concepts when those concepts were presented with the lying or truthful face, respectively, from the video. Seeing a liar’s face made people faster at classifying lie-related words than truth-related words—and seeing a truth-teller had the opposite effect. “When you see a liar’s face, the concept of deception is activated in your mind even if you’re not consciously aware of it,” ten Brinke hypothesizes. “It’s still unclear just how high a percentage of lies our unconscious mind is able to sense accurately, but discrimination is definitely occurring.”

Unconscious discrimination seems to play out in more life-like scenarios, too. In a series of prior studies, conducted by an unrelated group at the University of Manheim, the psychologist Marc-André Reinhard and his colleagues found that the ability of student judges to detect deception improved drastically if they were given time to think—but only if, in that time frame, they thought about something other than the case they were judging. If they had to make an immediate judgment, they did no better than chance. The same was true if they were allowed to deliberate consciously. But when they were kept from consciously deliberating, by, for example, completing a demanding word-search puzzle, their accuracy improved significantly. Reinhard concluded that, in the unconscious-deliberation condition, the brain had had time to integrate the subtle cues that our conscious mind can’t quite perceive into a more complete judgment.

Why is it so hard for people to spot sociopaths then? Could it be that some people are willfully blind?

Successful female sociopath

I thought this was a very interesting portrait of another successful sociopath from a recent comment that also seemed creepily similar to my own life story. She talks about her path to success, her bisexuality, her bout with cancer, recognizing one of her doctors as a fellow sociopath (whom she ruined), her instrumental view of relationships, among other entertaining tidbits:

I am an older sociopath with a terminal illness, I am female, a retired law professor, bi sexual - and predatory too - when I want something enough or I want to have some fun. 

I always knew I was different. I have clear memories from before I was able to walk, which I did at 9 months, so was alert and conscious very early. I was also a third child, with a non-maternal mother and a father who was often absent, but sociable. Both parents had high levels of hypocrisy. Like you I was trained to look beneath the surface at a young age. 

I was cleverer than those around me, and looked at issues from a perspective not often shared by others. This was a boost academically and professionally as it meant I was 10-20 steps ahead, as I had coolly considered all permutations, not just the socially acceptable or obvious ones. I was always able to get children around me to do things for me and I enjoyed manipulating them. I was incredulous when very young about how easy it was to get others to do what I wanted them to do. By the time I was around 10 years old I knew it was not a common way of being. I could also lie straight to adults without them detecting it. I learned to say "the right thing" as it was always too easy to work out what people wanted. I had a slew of aunts who loved hearing I wanted to be eg., a nurse so I could "help people." I had no intention of being a nurse and sick people always repulsed me, so by a very young age I was lying to curry social favours. I always knew I was lying. There was no self delusion about it. I enjoyed getting away with it.

It has been interesting going through a life threatening illness [cancer] as a sociopath. Doctors and other health professionals are nonplussed at my lack of tears or panic for example and my interest in details that are important to me, but not to 99.9% of patients. Apparently 99.9% of patients go through these stages of grieving. I didn't. It certainly saved a lot of time on pointless emotions. I also never had a "why me" moment. Why not me? I wasn't born with a get out of jail free card and statistically it was always on the cards. 

Many cancer staff felt relaxed as a result of my matter of fact presentation, lack of hysterics and self deprecating gallows humour. Part of my motivation was to get them to do more things for me, but also I enjoyed the thought that if they thought they liked me, they would be more upset when I died and would never forget someone they thought of as a stoic, funny and engaging patient. 

During the course of my treatment I was referred to a Radiation Oncologist who I recognised immediately as a fellow sociopath. He let one comment slip as he thought I was a not particularly bright patient. The one comment/slip gave me my opportunity. Interestingly he did not detect me at the time, but as I questioned him later about the medical advice he had imparted and queried the statistical and other reasons for his treatment recommendations, he may have slowly cottoned on. It was fun putting him through the wringer especially as he had not even bothered to pay lip service to informed consent... and I had a witness, who was a hospital employee. He left the hospital's employ soon after. I had him on toast and he did not like it being exposed in front of his colleagues. 

I was about to leave a long term [10 years] female partner when I was diagnosed with cancer. She is very service oriented, so it suits me to stay with her now as I know I don't have to bother with shopping, cooking, cleaning, bills etc. The woman I was considering leaving her for would not have been as attentive and did not have as large an annual income or the selfless mentality which would keep me more comfortable when ill. It was a cold blooded and practical assessment of how to ensure I was best advantaged.

What you can learn from sociopaths (part 1)

From a reader on his experiences with sociopaths ("they let me fool myself") the seeming contradictions of a sociopath, narcissist,-lites, and other gems:


Early on in my life I could spot sociopaths but I didn't know how to qualify them.  There was some discomfort on their parts that I was on to them but they let me fool myself.  They figured out my interpretation of their behavior and then allowed me to think what I wanted to think.  

One can spot the sociopath by their strange lack of vulnerability, the absence of committal statements and their propensity to linger in a group long enough to politic.  These qualities all in one person seemed like a contradiction to me.  It's a contradiction because non-committers show some anxiety and sociopaths do not.   Lingerers are become increasingly committal as the increased time with the group increases their comfort but sociopaths do not commit even when they are supposed to be comfortable.  

I don't consider myself a sociopath but I can appreciate and empathize with their realistic approach to life.  You see I grew up with the exact opposite.  My parent is a narcissist.  It didn't take long for me to learn that as long as the narcissist is receiving his narcissistic supply he will delude himself. Sound familiar? The neurotypical, as long as he is receiving societal approval and validation will delude himself as well.  The average person is a narcissist-lite. 

The realistic aspect of the sociopath is that he understands human nature and coldly uses it to his advantage.  The practical part of the sociopath is that he casts the widest possible social net to influence the greatest number of people - all the while preventing opposition-opposition which would undermine all his hard work.  The authentic part of the sociopath is that he knows what he wants and isn't afraid to get it.  The only difference is the sociopaths authenticity is that it is harmful for him to divulge it. 

The sociopaths authenticity is an impediment when revealed. The sociopath creates rapport without ever divulging his/her "authenticity." Divulging this authenticity is social suicide for the sociopath since society does not accept people that lack empathy and refuse to play by the "rules."  From my observation, however, the sociopath is more authentic a being than both the narcissist and the average neurotypical person.  At least the sociopath is in touch with who he is.  He is someone that knows what he wants and will do whatever it takes to get it.  He is strongly in touch with his desires of the moment. He is not afraid to acknowledge them and is not afraid to risk failure in order to obtain them.  

Spotting a sociopath quiz

The "quiz" I made on spotting the sociopath and a chance to win a free book. Thanks again for your help.

Wannabe sociopaths

I'm not talking about the people that sometimes frequent the comments section and forum of this site, but those who have adopted sociopathic traits due to their environment -- maybe a rough childhood leading to finding respite in gang and adopting the heartlessness of that life, or someone on wall street?  I was sort of charmed by this comment to a recent post:

Corporations are absolutely sociopathic because of their bottom line. However, like sociopaths, they can choose to act in a benevolent manner out of their own best interest- and often do. Corporations are amoral. Corporations reside in the world of power and winning first. I could do on, but there is nothing empathetic about a corporation in our present "free" market system. A benevolent sociopath could not survive intact in the corporate world unless they were lying to themselves all day every day. You want to talk about wannabe sociopaths? Talk to an empath on wall street. 

I have a friend who I am starting to believe is an empath on Wall Street. He worked for many years in his country's version of the CIA or MI-6. He is one of the most cold, calculating people I know -- the type that would never hesitate to pull the trigger on something. Now he is an investment banker, his attempt to cash out on his connections and background. Still he hates it because of the crushing workload, and every time he talks to me about it he has another exit plan fantasy. One of his escape hatches involved taking over an ammunitions company from an ailing client of his. He was talking to me about it, how the company is strong but not much room for expansion (the company primarily sells directly to militaries). I suggested that even if he just stuck with his government contracts, he would be doing well with the company at least for the rest of his lifetime because there would always be war. To his discredit he argued back, "yeah, but how long are we going to be shooting bullets?" Maybe I am wrong on this point, but I thought there were several treaties, including the Hague Conventions, that have basically insured that not only will we be using bullets in war, we will basically be using the same type and kind of bullets as we have always have (as opposed to hollow point bullets in conjunction with chemical warfare, etc.). Undeterred, I mentioned the possibility of expanding out of government contracts into the private market, which he also balked at, saying that he didn't want to be the equivalent of an arms dealer in a very "bullets kill people" sort of way. I was disappointed to hear him say that. How could he have done what he did as a spy, then become a ruthless banker, then take a moral stance on selling bullets that might end up in the brain of some thug?

This goes along a little with my post from yesterday. Sometimes I get a vibe from someone that indicates to me that they are a sociopath and I get all excited. Then they say something that makes it clear that although we may see eye to eye on some issues, there's an ocean of disagreement separating us. It's sort of what it feels like to be libertarian.

Knowing the limits of our answers

I thought this was a very interesting Wired article about the limitations of the PCL-R.  The author begins with the anecdote of Alan Turing's attempt to answer the question of whether computers could think.  Realizing that the question framed that way was impossible to answer (what does it mean to think?), he reframed the question to be whether computers could pass as humans.  He set up an experiment where test subjects were asked to determine whether responses from an unidentified source came from another human or a computer.

Turing constructed the test in transparently trivial terms. If a computer could fool someone for five minutes 70 percent of the time, it was as good as intelligent. This is powerful not because of its implications for intelligence, but because of its insight into asking tough questions. When we don’t understand the underlying causes of a phenomenon, what scientists call its mechanism, we must resort to studying its effects. But it is crucial that we be aware of the limitations of this approach and remain humble in our inquiry.

He then goes on to compare the difficult misalignment between what we can test and what we hope to learn in terms of the PCL-R and other diagnostic tools for psychopathy:


In the next year, the American Psychological Association will put the finishing touches on the latest version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, its compendium of psychiatric illnesses. Psychiatry is up against a problem similar to the one Turing faced. The illnesses are complex and their causes hard to discern. Without a clear mechanism, psychiatrists must rely on their patients’ subjective symptoms. It’s a process that’s always fraught, but it works when psychiatrists are realistic about the constraints of their tests.

Things become more troubling when the stakes are high and the diagnoses are tough to change. This is the case in prisons throughout the Western world, where inmates are subjected to the revised Psychopathy Checklist, or PCL-R.

Like the Turing Test, the PCL-R is about effects and symptoms, not causes.

The problems with the PCL-R:


The PCL-R, unlike the Turing Test, is inflexible by design. The Turing Test merely relies on the ability of the machine to be convincing in the present. It doesn’t take into account the machine’s past track record. It leaves open the possibility for change and improvement. The PCL-R is not so forgiving. If a person with a history of psychopathic behaviour were to get better, testers would likely interpret this as deception. After all, deception is a key feature of psychopathy. The PCL-R tries to have it both ways. It relies on observing a set of behaviors, but it resists assigning significance to a change in those behaviors.

Leaving open the possibility of change isn’t about setting serial killers free. But for crimes on the margin, the batteries and assaults and armed robberies, we have to decide whether to deny people who score high on the PCL-R the same opportunities we would give those who score low.

The take away:

The checklist demands that we confront our values. For the possibility of a little more security, are we willing to risk denying a person a second chance? We have to understand the tradeoff and the uncertainty of the reward.

With the Turing Test, it’s pretty straightforward. Five minutes and 70 percent can only tell us so much. How much can the PCL-R tell us?

Alan Turing taught us that when the question is hard, we must know the limits of our answers. At stake here is redemption, the possibility that the wretched can make good. It is an aspiration worth more than a guess. It deserves our humility.


I like this issue about knowing the limits of our answers.  I have recently dipped more into the empirical side of my profession and it has been fascinating and eye-opening to see some of the common mistakes people make in terms of believing that they are "proving" things or that some things are capable of being "known."  There really is a great deal of hubris, and particularly when these pieces of "knowledge" leave the academic area of origin and are used by other people who are unaware of the inherent uncertainty (courts, parole boards, trolls, etc.).  I can understand why people would want to believe things are knowable, particularly when it comes to something as scary as psychopaths, but they just aren't -- at least not currently.

Sociopath vs. sociopath (part 2)

My response:

This is a good question and a hard one to answer.  I'd say that it is definitely possible to recognize another sociopath in real life because I have done it once.  But it's also impossible to know whether or how many other sociopaths I have met in real life without being able to identify them.

The one time I recognized a sociopath in real life, the person was of my same general background, education, and was even in my same career, which helped immensely I am sure.  I think when you recognize each other, the thing that tips you off the most is watching them perform your same tricks.  This must be how conmen spot each other (or at least this is how it is always portrayed in film).  There was something somewhat unnerving about our subsequent interactions.  With both of us mirroring the other to a certain extent, it was almost the effect you get when two mirrors are facing -- an endless loop with no substance.  Still, I think we understood each other and got on well.

The only other sociopath I have met in person is someone whom I had been previously informed was a sociopath.  That interaction was in some ways more telling.  We come from very different backgrounds, are in different stages in life, and just generally live in two different worlds.  I don't think I would have been able to tell whether this person was a sociopath if I hadn't been made aware of the diagnosis ahead of time.  The more time I spent with this person, the more I saw similarities, but this person's tricks were a different set than mine -- surely a set more suited to their daily life than mine.  We still talk and get along well too, but I think we also can bore each other with our lack of substance and commonalities to discuss.  But also we must intrigue or attract the other, because we definitely still play games whenever either of us is in the mood.

Sociopath vs. sociopath (part 1)

From a reader:


Forgive me if this is a question that has been asked and addressed before; I stumbled upon the site quite recently, and have not yet had a chance to look back through the archives in any great detail.

I am curious about the interaction between sociopaths. Not just in an online medium such as this site, but in real life, in day-to-day activities. I ask because I have reason to believe that I have recently, through a family member, become a target of a high-functioning sociopath, who makes a game of destroying people from the inside out.

I recognise in myself several tendencies that point towards sociopathy, though I am not particularly anxious to label myself as anything. I know what I am; I don't need words to describe it to be at peace with my own identity. Though I am curious about it at times, it is more like an exercise in thought than an existential crisis.

What I wonder about is how quickly sociopaths are able to recognise one another, to see through the facade of an otherwise "normal" human being. I was not at all surprised to find that this person was a sociopath - after meeting him a few times, I found myself interested in him - not sexually; he has displayed sexual interest in me, but I believe that this is more of a ploy for control, free of either emotion or desire, as are many of his actions - but on an intellectually stimulating level. We got on like the proverbial house on fire; I found his conversation very diverting and humourous, and we quite quickly alienated the other people we were talking to. I will admit to a complete lack of modesty in saying that I am quite often unable to meet and converse with someone who is on the same level as me in terms of intelligence, so I relish these chances when I get them.

Before our meeting, he had displayed interest in me through hearing about me from my family member, and I reciprocated that interest, purely because of the sheer amount of second-hand flattery I was receiving from him. I found it questionable, and was curious as to the reason behind it. To find out that he was a sociopath who had made it his goal to destroy my family member, and had possible intentions of transferring those attentions to me, either to hurt them further, or as a new target, was not surprising, but rather, confirmed some suspicions of mine. Even if the word 'sociopath' had not sprung to mind on meeting him, there was something in his behaviour that matched the hallmarks of a sociopath.

To reinstate, I would like to know how sociopaths react to one another, being as they are lone wolves rather than pack animals, if you will. If they are quickly able to identify a fellow sociopath; if they feel the need to force a confrontation upon meeting; if they are able to co-exist in harmony; if they are inclined to avoid other sociopaths. While sociopaths are vastly outnumbered by the general population, it would be ridiculous to assume that their paths would never cross.