Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Sam Vaknin (part 1)

A reader writes regarding Sam Vaknin:
I'm thinking it might be interesting to do a post on this internet phenomenon. I'm guessing you've come across this guy already, but if not, he's a very interesting subject. He's a self-proclaimed malignant narcissist who writes incessantly about narcissism. First there is the clusterfuck that is his main site (samvak.tripod.com), but if you do a google search he's all over the place. He does interviews with himself, and has his own forums where he's the only one allowed to post or answer questions. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding him in narcisissm circles, and it is said his writing actually causes damage to victims of narcissism. I think he's kind of awesome in his own fucked up way.
Now, why a post of narcissism on a sociopathy site?

Two reasons:

1. He's not your average self-deluded narcissist. He's extremely self aware, and also extremely intelligent. He's especially interesting because at first glance it looks like he's trying to help out victims, but really he's just a very self-involved dude who is really writing about himself and his journey of destinationless self-realization. His most telling stuff is his journals (samvak.tripod.com/journal1.html).

2. He is the subject of the documentary I, Psychopath (indiemoviesonline.com/watch-movies/i-psychopath), in which he actually goes through a battery of tests and is diagnosed as a psychopath in two countries. The film shows him fucking with everyone around him, including the filmmaker, who ends the film in a disturbed state. There is also his sad wife, the victim, who will never leave him, who knows what he is but still stays.

3. I think a lot of the self-proclaimed sociopaths as well as some of the "victims" that post comments on your blog are actually narcissists, or are self-aware enough to be struggling with narcissistic tendencies :)

I also recommend reading this thread about him: http://www.psychforums.com/narcissistic-personality/topic48396.html

I first read Vaknin (and many other resources including your blog) in an attempt to get a grip on what was going on with a relationship with a narcissist/sociopath, but in the process recognized myself in a lot of his writings. At first it was like swallowing a horse pill, but I've gotten used to it now and am trying to figure out how best to proceed.

I keep using the "narcissist/sociopath" term, instead of one or the other, because I do think it can very hard to tell the difference from the outside, though I know they are very different internally. It can be very hard to tell if the self-deception is feigned or not. This particular person I am talking about is self-aware (at least partially) but often acts like he is not. Is a self-aware narcissist still a narcissist? Or does he become something else? This is why Vaknin is especially interesting. The self-aware narcissist actually diagnosed with psychopathy.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Love Fraud: the book!

I got stuck watching the movie "Must Love Dogs" at a family function. It was fascinating, if for no other reason than to experience how a certain segment of the world experiences life. Or maybe not, maybe it's just a ridiculous older white woman fantasy about trying to find a "good man" in a world full of crazies, e.g. a philanderer and someone who dispenses with small talk on the first date. The film features Diane Lane saying things like "I slept with a man who isn't my husband, I guess that makes me promiscuous." Weeks later, I'm still wondering -- is this reality or fantasy? Maybe 50-something women really experience the world this way. But it is a Hollywood movie and knowing what I know of the world, I question its accuracy.

In a similar vein, Love Fraud founder Donna Andersen has written a 640-page book religiously chronically her marriage with someone whom she has diagnosed as a sociopath. I've been told that she's being featured on the premiere episode of "Who the (Bleep) Did I Marry?" on Investigation Discovery, a sister network of the Discovery Channel.
Premiering on Aug 25 at 10 pm ET, Who the Bleep is a series that features first-person tales of people who were married to scandalous spouses who turned out to be bank robbers, international spies, bigamists and more.
You can watch the trailer here.

Why do I say similar vein? Like the movie "Must Love Dogs," I just can't quite figure out whether your typical Love Fraud reader is delusional, principled, obsessed, wronged, out of touch, or on top of things. I think the position that Love Fraud people take on what happened to them can best be summed up by this passage:
This helps in part shed light on why people on the outside of some exploitative and abusive relationships generally blame the real victims, or express impatience by suggesting victims should just leave a bad relationship right away or should at least have known what someone else was doing behind their back.
But who can truly fathom the tangled webs sociopaths weave when they set out to deceive? Had the women Montgomery victimized known the truth about him before they got involved, surely they would have been in a better position to make different choices, more informed decisions. But they didn't know. They may have suspected something wrong, but short of doing full-fledged investigations, they generally had no direct access to proof when they needed it.

Okay. It's not an entirely far-fetched sounding version of events, but it is just so far outside of my own reality that I have a hard time seeing things their way. I'd much rather see people taking control/responsibility over what happened to them, like this:

Just as Andersen describes from her own personal growth journey, each of us can explore beliefs that potentially set us up for manipulation by others, whether due to feeling unloved or other unresolved issues from childhood. We can change our thinking and behaviors to focus more on our own well-being rather than expect to be rescued by a relationship or base hopes and dreams on fairy tales. We can learn to identify red flag behaviors in people who are toxic. We can change the way we react to others' attempts to guilt and shame us. We can learn to avoid being sucked into the drama that sociopaths are adept at creating.
I think at their best, support groups like Love Fraud should be trying to accomplish this real, lasting self-empowerment and healing. Instead, I wonder what percentage of these people get better. Do most actually "explore beliefs" that led them to what happened? Do they then apply what they learned through those explorations to fashion a better life for themselves? I would like to see some statistics on Love Fraud recidivism.

Monday, August 23, 2010

It's a mad mad world

One of the reasons why I like the 1960's era television show "Mad Men" is the way it exposes humanity's hubris. Humankind has a tendency to look down upon the follies of previous generations, rarely questioning which follies they will be known for in the near future. I love the gasps as "Mad Men" characters drink cocktails while visibly pregnant, a mother sits in the front seat of a car with an infant in her arms and no seat belt, or children play with dry cleaner bags over their heads. I gasp too. I think of fetal alcohol syndrome, the strength of a mother's grip vs. the velocity of a baby in a forward car collision, and how easily small children could become disoriented while suffocating. I don't have any moral reactions to these behaviors, but I am not used to seeing them in these "enlightened" times.

These anachronisms are fun, but I think the most striking thing about setting the program in the recent past is that the despite our progenitors stupidity about certain things, they were every bit as vigilant as we are now about their particular causes. Their causes seem foreign to us -- "T zones," careerism, machismo, communists -- but I think we can related to fact that they're choking on these artificial restraints on their behavior and beliefs just as much as their toddlers were choking on plastic bags. Maybe part of us realizes that in another 30 years we'll be laughing at people using cell phones (brain cancer) and think it's odd that our pets didn't have legal rights (why don't they?), but that doesn't keep most people from remaining blissfully unaware of the tenuous foundations on which their fragile lives rest. It's amazing to me how effective for most people a suburban white picket fence is at keeping out life's demons. Not like I'm much better. Instead of the picket fence, I choose to keep my demons on more of a large, open ranch, figuratively speaking, but I understand that it is basically a matter of preference.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Conversation with a reader: loyalty (part 2)

M.E.: So in your case, giving him a hard time about not meeting your needs increased the cost side of the cost/benefit equation.

Reader: If you mean that I eventually cost him more than I benefited him, yes.

M.E.: And you seemed to be set enough on things being that way that to him it seemed like it was going to be a constant deficit. That's the thing with sociopaths, they're fine with running into the red for a little while, particularly depending on the amount of equity already in the relationship, but if they sense something is going to run into the red indefinitely, they would rather just break things off then lose their entire investment. It's like choosing to amputate an infected limb before it spreads to vital organs. I was like that with one of my friends. Her dad had terminal cancer. She is super emotional, sort of self destructive, as a rule, and the smartest person I know personally.

Reader: But she asked you for too much?

M.E.: In a way yes, in other ways no. She never really asked; I just became. I'm flexible enough that I could become whatever it was that she needed, or what I thought she needed. It's hard to know when to stop, you know? You think that you can be whatever they need you to be, and that if the person is important enough to you, you should do so. But it is not cost free to you.

Reader: It's the same for empaths.

M.E.: Exactly! You can't indefinitely wear a mask that is so foreign to the way you typically are, a mask of extreme compassion or selflessness. So the costs of the relationship go up, and the benefits go down because she is depressed all the time and you're not getting what you used to get, very interesting conversations, a check on your own bad behavior, superior advice in all things including fashion. You run many months into the red and there still seems to be no improvement. It will tear you up inside. It's too much, too much force to try to put on your psyche.

Reader: And is there a way to talk about what used to be good about the relationship so that you two can go back to that?

M.E.: Yeah, there are always ways to go back, sunk costs, right? They’re ignored.

Reader: So will you get back in touch with your friend eventually?

M.E.: Ah, we're friends now. She picks all of my best clothing items. We didn't speak for a while, though. I was the one who asked for that, not speaking, that is. I think that hurt her a lot. She has a fear of being abandoned.

Reader: Of course it hurt her.

M.E.: Which is why I postponed it for so long, but it was literally making me crazy. I mean, I don't really have any boundaries. It's really hard to be put in a situation in which boundaries are necessary.

Reader: You probably did the right thing, by taking space.

M.E.: Yeah, maybe. It was really hard. I think it bothered me more that I had failed than that I had failed her, you know? I have such a healthy self-image, then something like this comes along. That's when you start feeling like you really are defective, like something is seriously wrong with you. You start believing that no matter how hard you try to do better in the future, this will keep happening over and over in your life like some sort of sick déjà vu. That's when life really starts to seem meaningless.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Conversation with a reader: loyalty (part 1)

Excerpts from an IM conversation with a reader:

M.E.:
It's hard being in any sort of relationship with a sociopath

Reader: It makes me wonder what is the best relationship for a sociopath. I wonder why socios don't pair up more.

M.E.: Probably not enough glue to keep them together. There are times when I question pursuing even some of my most enduring and meaningful relationships, family and friends. Empaths can't ignore sunk costs, typically. If they've poured so much into a relationship, they feel the urge to keep investing even if the costs exceed the benefits. That makes them poor entrepreneurs (or great ones!), but good in relationships because they’re not just willing but wanting to stick through things when they get tough.

Reader: The attachment/bond added to the investment keeps them around...

M.E.: Exactly. Sociopaths don't feel that pull. Not as strongly, at least. I am constantly asking myself, “Is this relationship or plan of action providing more to me than I am giving to it?”

Reader: But I thought sociopaths could be extremely loyal

M.E.: Yes, they can be very loyal. There will typically always be some level of interaction at which it is worth pursuing a relationship.

Reader: Ah, so they're loyal when the relationship is clearly rewarding.

M.E.: Well, maybe instead of best friends they could be good friends, like downsizing, or going on a little hiatus. I think that most people’s experience with sociopaths is that they want to eventually come back and maintain some sort of contact. Just because they ignore the sunk costs does not mean they go so far as to ignore the investment/equity that is already there.
Join Amazon Prime - Watch Over 40,000 Movies

.

Comments are unmoderated. Blog owner is not responsible for third party content. By leaving comments on the blog, commenters give license to the blog owner to reprint attributed comments in any form.