Fictional sociopaths: Tom Ripley

A reader sent me a movie clip with this description:

Also, here’s another video that I always resonated with. It’s John Malkovich’s portrayal of Tom Ripley in Ripley’s Game. I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen that movie, but it’s nicely done. You could say Ripley’s game boils down to manipulating what had been a relatively innocent man into committing murder. In fact, the scene starts right after they’ve killed several mobsters on a train. They got off the train and are in a station restroom (the relevant part starts at 3:40 and ends at about 5:10). “The one thing I know is we are constantly being born.” Very true indeed, truer than most people realize.


[Ripley has just helped Jonathan kill three mobsters]

Jonathan Trevanny: [crying] I know I should thank you, because I wouldn't be alive now if you hadn't helped me.... but I can't. I can't say thank you. I don't know anything about you. Who are you?

Tom Ripley: I'm a creation. A gifted improviser. I lack your conscience and, when I was young, that troubled me. It no longer does. I don't worry about being caught because I don't think anyone is watching. The world is not a poorer place because those people are dead — it's not. It's one less car on the road, a little less noise and menace. You were brave today. You'll go home and put some money away for your family. That's all.

Jonathan Trevanny: If you "lack my conscience," then why did you help me on the train?

Tom Ripley: [smiles] I don't know, but it doesn't surprise me. If there's one thing I know, it's that we're constantly being born.

Jonathan Trevanny: But why me? Why did you pick me?

Tom Ripley: Partly because you could. Partly because you insulted me. But mostly because that's the game. [checks watch] We need to catch this flight. Shall we?

John Malcovich's are some of the most convincing portrayals of a sociopath I've seen.

Reader responds: Talented Mr. Ripley

In response to our earlier exchange:

Thanks to your post, I was inspired to watch “The Talented Mr. Ripley” again. I was like him in so many ways, minus the serial killing. I was 20 years old when, like Tom, I realized that I appeared to be missing something other people around me seemed to have and take for granted: a firm belief in their sense of self. Unlike Tom Ripley, I didn’t lock in on one particular person who would embody everything I thought I could/should be (i.e. Dickie Greenleaf). I became your classic seeker. I looked for that missing self in a variety of places. My manhunt involved reading a slew of books about philosophy, religion and psychology as well as joining several groups, including the military. I was almost always loved and prized in these groups. I never had a problem getting people to open their homes and their hearts to me. You’d think that would be enough but it wasn’t because I knew. I knew that what the others loved wasn’t real. But I thought that surely some belief system, some moral philosophy, some religion, some group somewhere held the key that would unlock the vault that held the “real me”. It would take years of searching and struggle before I finally reached the place Tom Ripley did at the end of the movie when he realizes that his quest to be a “fake somebody” as opposed to a “real nobody” would never succeed. And like Tom, I was despondent about that. Then I got over it. My inability to fool myself about my self forever cuts me off from the rest of humanity’s common experience. So what. That doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy my life. Besides, without a rock hard sense of self for the brain to constantly recreate, project and defend, I’d be free to pursue my goals without the emotional baggage other people think of as normal.

And just as I’m coming to grips with all of this, I stumble upon your blog. If I believed in a magical universe, I’d call it destiny.

Enough rambling. Thank you for responding to my email. It was very well put. I think that your comments were spot on. And yes, you should definitely publish this exchange, especially your answer. Imagine if I’d gotten these answers when I was 20…

Loving father or calculating sociopath?

Clark Rockefeller, aka Christopher Chichester, aka Chris C. Rowe, aka Charles ‘Chip’ Smith, aka Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, was convicted of parental kidnapping in June of this year. After losing custody of his daughter Reigh to his wife, Gerhartsreiter kidnapped her and attempted to start a new life with her under yet another one of his aliases. He was of course found and arrested, His daughter, whom he affectionately calls ‘Snoops,’ was reunited with her mother. His conviction was the culmination of an amazing, Tom Ripley-like tale of changing aliases, fascinating deceptions, and quite possibly murder.

I remember watching his story as it was told on “Dateline” earlier this year with great interest. Of course, we can never be completely sure of these things, but his modus operandi, along with his responses during an on air interview, virtually screamed sociopath to me. A psychiatrist hired by the defense diagnosed him as a narcissist who also suffered from grandiose delusions. I can see that. After all, his last and longest alias was as nothing less than a Rockefeller. But the calculation and manipulation that spanned decades suggested he was more sociopath than narcissist. He knew what he was doing. He was an experienced actor. He slipped into and out of different roles with ease and he knew exactly how to comport himself, which words to say and which emotional buttons to push to maneuver others into believing whatever he wanted them to believe about him. At the very least, malignant narcissist might be a better explanation.

What fascinated me were the contradictions he seems to represent. His cons weren’t of the usual “bilk the idiots out of tons of money” variety. It was more along the lines of wanting to find a mask to actually be. Gerhartsreiter wanted to be something other than the anonymous German kid he was born as and he was determined to make that happen, even if it meant living a lie. To that degree he reminded me of Matt Damon’s Tom Ripley. Also, there was the attempted kidnapping of his daughter. Was his daughter supposed to be a bargaining chip that he would use against his wife in some future power play or did he actually hate the idea of being separated from her? There were several witnesses at the trial who claimed that he was nothing but a loving and devoted father to his child and the wife never suggested otherwise during the trial nor afterward, with the exception of course, of the kidnapping itself.

Did Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter actually want to "be someone"? Did he make an emotional connection of sorts with his little girl? Is someone who has clearly demonstrated a capacity for deception and effective manipulation capable of such a thing? And if he is capable of making any kind of love connection, what does that say about the idea that it is impossible for sociopaths to love?

The psychopath problem

The psychology world seems to be taking a fresh look at sociopathy. Apparently once people dared question the infallibility of Hare's diagnostic criteria, the Psychopathy Check List Revised ("PCL-R"), it opened the door for other heresies against established views.

In his new book "Forensic Psychology: A Very Short Introduction," David Canter, a psychology professor at the University of Hudderfield, briefly describes the psychopath problem:

Until you have met someone whom you know has committed horrific violent crimes but can be charming and helpful, it is difficult to believe in the Hollywood stereotype of the psychopath. Without doubt, there are people who can seem pleasant and plausible in one situation but can quickly turn to viciousness. There are also people who just never connect with others and are constantly, from an early age, at war with those with whom they come into contact. If we need a label for these people, we can distinguish them as type 1 and type 2 psychopaths. The former have superficial charm, are pathological liars, being callous and manipulative. The clearest fictional example of this sort of psychopath is Tom Ripley, who has the central role in many of Patricia Highsmith’s amoral novels. The type 2 psychopaths are more obviously criminal, impulsive, and irresponsible with a history of juvenile delinquency and early behavioural problems.

Another label that may be assigned to people who are habitually involved in illegal, reckless, and remorseless activities that has a much broader net than ‘psychopathy’ is ‘antisocial personality disorder’. But we should not be seduced into thinking that these diagnoses are anything other than summary descriptions of the people in question. They do not help us to understand the causes of people behaving in these unacceptable ways. Some experts have even commented that they are actually moral judgements masquerading as medical explanations. So although the labels ‘personality disorder’ and ‘psychopath’ do summarize useful descriptions of some rather difficult, and often nasty, people, we need to look elsewhere for explanations of how they come to be like that.

The psychopath problem for society is "how do we keep psychopaths from acting in antisocial ways?" The psychopath problem for psychologists is "what are we really dealing with here?" Before psychologists can even begin understanding psychopaths, they must be able to identify them. Before psychologists can identify psychopaths, they must be able to understand them. It's a classic chicken/egg dilemma that leads critics like our favorite narcissist Sam Vaknin to quip that "psychopathy seems to be merely what the PCL-R measures!" and probably led the good folks putting together the DSM to eventually exclude psychopathy as a diagnosis in favor of the more criminal-sentencing friendly ASPD.

Still, these tests are being used, and brains of people flagged by these tests are being scanned and studied, helping scientists to learn more about . . . the brains of people who would be flagged by these tests. Some of the new discoveries or theories about psychopathy jive with my own personal experiences, and some of them strike me as being less than accurate -- an attempt to add an epicycle to support some of the weaker premises that provide the basis for the modern study of psychopathy. Maybe it is true that we are on the verge of a breakthrough, as some psychologists think -- a unifying theory of the causes and explanations for psychopathic behavior. If we are, I think it will have to be a product of fresh thinking, rather than continuing to focus on the same "20 items designed to rate symptoms which are common among psychopaths in forensic populations (such as prison inmates or child molesters)."

Power hungry

A reader asks why sociopaths are so power hungry, do I suspect any historical or contemporary figures were/are sociopaths, e.g. Machiavelli, and how to learn to think like a sociopath.

I honestly don't know why sociopaths are so concerned with gaining power. I don't think it is necessarily unique to sociopaths, obviously, but I would say that it seems to apply to the vast majority of sociopaths. Perhaps there is something evolutionarily implicated here, that for the same reasons that sociopaths were evolved to not have a conscience, they were also evolved to crave power?

There's something very primitive about the sociopath's drive for power, like the sex drive, but it can manifest itself in many ways. For instance, I think a lot of sociopaths just want to make people jump, or at least know that they can. Some of them want the classical form of power, for example some political or business position or the money that can buy the power. Some of them, like me, channel the drive for power to include power over oneself, one's impulses and inclinations.

I do think that Machiavelli was a sociopath. There are a lot of people that I sort of suspect are sociopaths, but it's really hard to tell if anyone is without being privy to their thought processes. Anything else is complete speculation. For instance, I got in this idle debate once about whether Angelina Jolie was sociopath leaning. In my mind she had some of the clear identifying factors: creepy attachment to family, volatile, bisexual, and loves Ayn Rand (libertarian leaning politically). The person I was arguing with could not get over her humanitarian work, which to me is a nonstarter because there could be plenty of reasons why she does that. You know? Like why do I write this blog? People always want to know stuff like that, but there could be a million reasons, including accumulating power, respect, being able to influence the dialogue about a particular subject, etc. And with Angelina Jolie, how can you explain the other stuff? Like the fact that she has a look that makes people want to cry and she can be equally seductive with straight women as she is with men? But really I could go either way with her, and without looking inside her head there's no way to know for sure.

There are few people that I would feel confident to say are sociopaths, most of them literary because we actually get to see the "honest" picture of how they think, e.g. Tom Ripley, Cathy from East of Eden, and some others I have mentioned on the blog.

How to learn to think like a sociopath? I don't know, find one to apprentice with? But I would be careful. I think after you learn to think like a sociopath, there is something about you that changes and you can never really go back. I think this is particularly true if you learn to think like a sociopath at a young age and had all of those sociopathic neurological pathways reinforced instead of the "normal" ones.

For more information, please visit our Web Community.

Asexual sociopath

Sam Vaknin often describes narcissists as being essentially asexual in nature, and literary sociopath Tom Ripley is perhaps best described as also being "asexual" rather than bisexual. I have expressed my own opinions about how a sociopath's sense of sexuality can seem fuzzy, and asked a female sociopath reader to describe her own sexuality, or asexuality, as it turns out:

If I had to label myself, I'd be A-sexual (this is what I generally tell people if they ask). I am attracted to both sexes, but not because I want to have sex with them, though I do sometimes engage in the act of fornication. I adore women. They are sexy, soft, delicate, and so easy to use. But being a very feminine looker myself, it's equally easy to target men, who I happen to find attractive for their muscles, ruggedness, and animalistic tendencies. Woman are wonderful because they are the embodiment of nurturing, and when I don't feel like being a hard-ass, I can cuddle with a soft woman, and put my mind at ease, as long as they aren't constantly talking. Men are wonderful because I am pretty aggressive, and I love the power and strength that oozes out of the way they carry themselves. Sexually, they are equal really. I only want one thing, and both sexes supply it sufficiently. Relationship wise, I can tolerate women longer, but I'd more than likely venture elsewhere due to boredom, and their petty needs. They get too deep, too personal.

Though sexually perverted, I have not had sex that often. My drive in regular sex is close to non-existent, I hate the closeness in it all. If not obvious seduction, which is rare, my way of reeling them in is humor, and charisma. I am the regular funny, clever person that gets everyone around me talking. I only get cat-like in my movements when I have a specific target. I often imagined what it would be like if I were a man. I would be able to feel her insides, and drain her sexually, and emotionally as well as physically, and experience the best sexual high while sucking the life out of her. Like a parasite I want to get deep inside a woman, and spread my seeds into every orfice of her body until she deteriorates from the inside out. As a woman, I don't feel that empowerment. I don't leave anything, literal, in any of my subjects to drain them. Mentally, emotionally, of course. The deterioration is obvious. But I don't get to feel them deteriorating. I just see it. What is sex like for a male sociopath, I wonder?

Growing up it was very confusing to be me. I identified more with the boys I grew up with, rough housing, manipulating, getting in trouble, bad mouthing. I have rough exteriors, and was a serious (still am) tomboy. I joke saying I'm a male in a very obvious female body, and those who know me never describe me as dainty, or girly. My mother just wanted her daughter to be a girl, and I knew I was, but didn't like the typical girl characteristics. I tried to be girly, and felt out of place. I was masculine, but still to in touch with my femininity to deny it completely. I didn't know what gay was until I was in high school, but by then I was so awkward that my sexuality didn't seem to matter anymore. I was just trying to deal with my personality, trying to fit in, the usual story with sociopaths. I didn't know anything about personality disorders until I was diagnosed with one. I was more into the idea of sexuality before high school, and once I started school, the interest in sex just vanished. It became more of a need for domination, control, and manipulation with a side-dish of "lets see what I can get away with", than sex games teenagers usually get wrapped up in. I definitely identify more with men mentally, and physically, but not enough to want to be one permanently. Being a female definitely has its advantages though. I wouldn't change that for the world. I can turn men to putty, and take them for everything that they are worth without breaking a sweat. But to experience being one, for at least a week, would really make me happy. I would have a certain something that is mine, and not sparkly pink with a few straps and a harness.

I do envy you fellas sometimes...

Trying to find myself, what sex I identified with, who I preferred, how to look, dress, and act, came to a still once I stopped trying to give myself a label. Once I was honest with myself, and stopped trying so damn hard to fit in or hide, I became free. I heard the sociopath term before with past psychiatrists, but didn't apply it deeply into myself until going to your site. Now it's easy like Sunday morning. I fight constantly with impulses to harm, but there are stabilizing influences in my life, so I am behaving, for the most part. I want hook-ups later in exchange for good behavior.

As far as I'm concerned I am a person who is fluid with any sex as long as they give me what I want, entertainment, and of course, lots of goodies.

Sexuality and sociopathy

Sociopathy is a personality disorder. We are unusually impressionable, very flexible with our sense of self, and with our defining characteristics. Because we don't have a rigid self-image or worldview, we don't observe social norms, we don't have a moral compass, and we have a fluid definition of right and wrong. We can also be shapeshifters, smooth-talking, and charming. We can become your ideal mate, in a way described here and here. We do not have an established default position on anything. This extends, at least in some degree, to our sexuality.

The original diagnostic and statistical manual (DSM), released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The connection between the two was subsequently removed due to protests from the gay community that homosexuality was being equated with sociopathy. Many have commented since that sociopaths seem to have no particular sexual identity, that even the term bisexual is misleading as it implies some sort of a preference, albeit a shared one, and that "equal opportunity" is a more apt label. In fact, the sociopath seems to be the bonobo of the human world -- frequent, casual, utilitarian sex. As one person reasoned, "such an individual, in their quest for dominance and power would not feel the need to discriminate according to gender."

We see fictional examples of the sociopathic "bisexual" with the talented Mr. Ripley, Joker from Batman (depending on who writes him), and real life examples with Leopold and Loeb and others listed here. If I had to speculate about current celebrities, I would also include Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, and Lindsay Lohan, although narcissism could apply equally well for some of those.

I was thinking about all of this while reading an article on Sir Laurence Olivier's sexual predilections. Although married three times, he apparently also had many male interests, one of whom explained it as follows:

"He's like a blank page and he'll be whatever you want him to be. He'll wait for you to give him a cue, and then he'll try to be that sort of person."

Maybe larry wasn't a sociopath, maybe he was, but he shared with sociopaths the common characteristic of a weak sense of self, and he illustrates well how that might play out with one's sexual identity. In any case, the lesson learned here is not only does being a sociopath potentially make you a great thespian, it also gives new meaning to the old consolation, "there are plenty more fish in the sea."