Criticisms of PCL-R confirmed by recent study

The blows keep coming to the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist Revisited). As one forensic psychologist blogger reports:

In a result with potentially momentous implications for forensic practitioners, the researchers found that Factor 1 of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) does not predict violence. As you know, Factor 1 purports to measure the core constellation of a psychopathic personality (superficial charm, manipulativeness, lack of empathy, etc.). When introduced in court, evidence of psychopathy has an enormously prejudicial impact on criminal offenders.

But, the PCL-R's much-ballyhooed ability to predict certain types of violence owes only to the instrument's second factor, according to the metaanalysis by researchers Min Yang, Steve Wong, and Jeremy Coid. And that's no surprise. After all, Factor 2 measures the criminogenic factors (criminality, irresponsibility, impulsivity, history of delinquency, etc.) that even a fifth-grader knows are bad signs for a future of law-abiding citizenship.

In my experience, the Factor 1 items -- the ones purporting to measure an underlying personality profile -- are the ones more likely to be inflated by some evaluators. That's because many of these items are pretty subjective. Glib? Superficially charming? If you don't like a guy -- and/or he doesn't like you -- you are more likely to rate these negative items as present. That's one of my hypotheses for the large evaluator differences and partisan allegiance effects found with the PCL-R in forensic practice.

Cumulatively, the emerging PCL-R findings beg the question:

Why introduce the Psychopathy Checklist in court if other violence risk tools work just as well, without the implicitly prejudicial effect of labeling someone as a "psychopath"?

I wonder -- would there be any prejudicial effect of labeling someone a "psychopath" if psychologists finally stopped conflating psychopathy with violence/criminality?

Questioning the validity of the PCL-R

From the Drs. Skeem and Cooke article that got Dr. Robert Hare's panties all in a wad about the validity of his PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist Revisited):

“Without a history of violent or criminal behavior, even an individual with pronounced interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy is unlikely to surpass the PCL–R’s threshold score for diagnosing psychopathy.”

“We specifically argue that the process of understanding and appropriately diagnosing psychopathy must be separated from the enterprise of predicting violence.”

“First, the PCL–R is a measure that imperfectly maps psychopathy, the domain of interest. Second, the PCL–R’s factor structure is not a conceptualization of, or explanation for, psychopathy and does not fully correspond to Cleckley’s (1941) conceptualization, on which it is purportedly based. Third, reification of the PCL–R forecloses on the possibility of iteratively using theory and empirical results to revise this tool (and others) to advance understanding of psychopathy.”

“’Thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us’ (Hercz, 2001, ¶ 11). The two-factor model poorly identifies this “great majority of psychopaths” who escape contact with the legal system or simply express their psychopathic tendencies in a manner that does not conflict with the law.”

“Beyond past criminal behavior, adding such variables as gender, age, or substance abuse to the PCL–R might also improve prediction of violence. Such an improvement would not imply that these characteristics are central to psychopathy.”

“The pursuit of validly diagnosing a personality disorder is distinct from the enterprise of predicting violence.”

(Email me if you would like to read the article in its entirety.)

The scheming sociopath myth

There seems to be a persistent belief that sociopaths are omnipotent scoundrels who are constantly taking advantage of mere mortals. Yes, sociopaths seem to naturally look for weaknesses and loopholes to exploit, but how is that any different from a day trader in the stock market playing off of whims of society, or a retailer, a corporate raider, or any other arbitrageur? Some of society's greatest achievements were made by someone who was trying to outplay the other guy, e.g. Christopher Columbus.

Plus it is quite rare to make a career completely out of exploiting others -- there simply are not enough opportunities to go around for all potential takers. And make no mistake, if there were more opportunities to go around, there would be more criminals. The prohibition against police entrapment exists because we believe that even your typical lay-abiding citizen will indulge in a unsavory scheme if presented with the right opportunity. Yes, you have your career criminals, "playmakers" who are not only looking for opportunities, but creating them: maybe con men, gypsies, golddiggers, or meth-addled petty thieves. The bulk of people committing an "exploitative" crime, however, are simply people who were presented with the right set of circumstances for their particular needs/wants/skills.

People who believe that there are ample, risk-free opportunities for sociopaths to live off of the weaknesses of others are the same delusional souls who respond to requests from Nigerian princes. The truth is that even for the bulk of sociopaths, when you factor in the risk of getting caught, crime simply does not pay.

I noticed a lot of responses in yesterday's post either scoffing at or supporting the idea of a successful sociopath. What a lot of people don't realize is that despite sociopaths being largely ruled by impulses (or perhaps because they are), they are incredibly sensitive to incentive structures and actively consider both actual costs and opportunity costs in their decisionmaking. I think "Gabriel" explained the situation very well in his comments:

I'm no world leader, but I do have a well-paying professional job in a Fortune 500 company rather than languishing in prison, so I guess you could say I am a successful sociopath. I'm as capable as anyone else of learning from mistakes. I certainly never learned empathy, but I'm intelligent enough to learn rules and learn that breaking them often has consequences that are unpleasant.

As to wanting to follow the rules, if following them benefits me sufficiently, then I'm fully capable of following them. If breaking them will bring consequences I don't like, then I don't break them. No empathy is involved, simply a logical examination of cause and effect.

I agree with your second paragraph, 2 said, that it's more likely dependent on intelligence. I have untoward impulses like any other sociopath, but I have the intelligence to foresee what the likely outcome would be, and decide whether it's worth it to me. I'm not ashamed to say that I usually make decisions based on what will benefit me the most, and acting impulsively and stupidly is rarely what will benefit me. Even I know that benefiting others in the short term is often what will benefit me most in the long term -- just like any normal person.
***
Having worked in major corporations for about 3 decades, I know that no matter how you choose to rise through the ranks, there have still got to be people higher who promote you, and they aren't going to do it unless you bring value -- to either themselves or the company. If all socios left nothing but a path of carnage and destruction along their career paths, do you think that's hidden from those with the power to move them upward?

Perhaps the best reason to want to avoid living off someone else, though, is the low quality of the people you could live off. Prostitutes, golddiggers, etc., they all have to "earn" it somehow, almost always by filling a role that nobody is willing to do for free, which makes them the underworld's equivalent of garbage men and tax collectors. If you want to be around quality people, you have to learn to check the manipulation and the gamesmanship and engage with those people on a higher level. If lower quality people don't demand the same from us, is it really our fault if we give them what they're looking for?

Bad romance

I thought this was an interesting email from a reader regarding a recent relationship with a successful, powerbroker sociopath. There are a lot of stories about sociopaths wanting to scam or ruin the people they are in relationships with, but what about the sociopath who already seemingly has it all? What does s/he get out of the relationship? Could it be that a successful sociopath merely enjoys someone else's company? Or appreciates a fresh perspective, a companion who is "game" to try new things? And of course the question that has even less satisfactory answers, why would a "normal" person want to be with someone "abnormal" like that?

I am wondering if you can give me some insight. I've been involved with a man in a secretive relationship for two years. I'm married and so is he, although he strangely has a separate house in the same town. But pushing morality aside, here are the straight facts:

He is a highly successful and manipulative business magnate. He controls corporations, people, money, you name it. He has ruthlessly succeeded in business for two decades and while he no longer needs to work, he gets off on the associated drama. He loves the thrill of a fast take-over or money made quickly and effectively, regardless of what other corporation or career goes down in the process. He is the type of man you would never wish to cross in business or life. He's an eye for an eye kind of guy, and will do everything in his own power to see that 'justice' happens. Never with violence, but quietly and effectively.

He was married for almost ten years, but found he wasn't good at it. He has disowned his grown son. He is, however, loyal to a small group of friends he has known for many years. They have a roaring good time in business and life. Their unique views are similar.

But let's cut to the chase. He is the hottest, most passionate lover I have ever known. He is insanely erotic, but dominant at all times in the bedroom. Not S&M, but simply put, he is always in control. He holds intense eye contact during sex and is a deeply passionate kisser. But if not in the throws of passion, he is not remotely touchy-feely. He can be as cold as ice, but when he is hot, he's the hottest thing I've ever known - or will ever know.

I have struggled over the past couple of years to know whether he simply withholds emotion, because of the illicit nature of our relationship or because he is a true S or P (likely P in his case). At times I have felt that he loves me insanely, and at other times I question whether he knows how to play me to get what he wants.

Additional info... He admits to:

Lacking compassion
Not understanding people
Being awkward, despite his extreme charisma
Paranoia
Uncomfortable living with anyone
Secretive
Self-serving financially

There are many more things, but for the sake of privacy, I won't publish them here. Suffice to say, he'd get a gold star on the Hare check-list.

When I steal affection from him that isn't in the heat of the moment, he sweetly goes along, but in short order, he must soon pull away. I actually don't mind. I understand what his boundaries are. He was gentle but clear when he admitted that emotional and physical intimacy make him awkward. And yet, this man who professes to be awkward around people pursued me relentlessly for many months before landing me in the sack. I gave him every reason why we would and should never be together, but every argument I presented was counteracted with the most artful and intriguing response. It was an escalating and erotic debate that pulled me across moral boundaries I'd not crossed before. I caved, and I am no push-over. And two years out, I find that I've accepted personality traits I would never have accepted in the past, and I feel deep love and acceptance for him.

Empaths see the world through rose-colored glasses. Not this guy. He's taught me lessons in life that no normal person could possibly teach. We are in an insanely unique relationship and our cerebral connection is extreme. We spend hours discussing everything imaginable, including his highly checkered past. We also share a mutual zest for life and I don't judge or seek to change him. For clear and obvious reasons, I should fear him, but I don't. Through him I find clarity. I don't ever enrage him. I've learned patience, control and understanding like never before. I love him unconditionally and I loathe to admit that my interaction with my antisocial has made me a better person.

Tell me something: Can a sociopath truly love another, in their own way? He has never been unkind or cruel to me. He is brutally honest about who and what he is, although I've never asked him directly if he is a psychopath. I think I'm afraid of the blunt response that might be forthcoming. He does admit to being antisocial.

I sometimes think that if he is a P or S that he's hit the pot of gold in the relationship world. I have accepted every unique, wonderful and dark thing about him. I just want to know what I'm dealing with. I'm not even sure I would run if he is a sociopath. I get so much out of the relationship, in terms of intelligent and shrewd conversation and hot sex, that I seem compelled to stay for my own selfish reasons.

Thanks for any advice/thoughts/analysis you may have. I figure it's best to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

The same reader wrote me this update:

We have since split up. It was a tricky break-up for me, but clean for him. He brought down the hatchet quickly, and I didn't have a moment to respond. It took a couple of months, but he finally made contact and we have departed on good terms.

When I wrote the original letter, I was pretty sure of what I was dealing with, and I've researched more since then, and hung around this board. I no longer question what he is, and sadly, I better understand his capacity to feel the same things that I feel. But I'd love to hear feedback, particularly now that it is definitively over. But the 'over' was done with class and style from both sides, despite the chilling and brutal silence before-hand.

And finally, please tell me, is it ever really done with a psychopath? I should wish and hope for that, but sadly, I miss the excitement. I miss the ride. I miss the wild and hot sex and I miss him. Maybe I'm just a sucker with my own issues and low boredom threshold, complete with the need for drama and entertainment, but I loved the bastard. Truly, I did. It would be easier to feel anger after his abrupt dismissal, but I don't and will never fault him for what he is. And for what he is, he's damn good at it.

Compensated sociopaths?

A reader sent me this link about "compensated sociopaths," which includes excerpts from the book "The Emptied Soul," by Adolf Guggenbühl-Craig.

Individuals approaching the psychopathic extreme are not totally wanting in morality, but they do sense a weakness, an awareness that something is missing, which frightens them. They also suspect that their love is not all it could or should be. In order to adapt they begin to compensate for these deficiencies by becoming morally rigid.

Since compensated psychopaths cannot depend upon eros, their egos work out a moral system which is fool-proof in any and every situation. The result, as paradoxical as it may seem, is usually a well-developed morality with an emphasis upon the ego's role but woefully lacking in love.

Compensated psychopaths have played significant parts in society and in history. The more psychopathic compensated psychopaths are - in other words the more they have to compensate - the more sinister they are. All the Nazi functionaries who administered the concentration camps and supervised the destruction of thousands and thousands of human beings; all of Stalin's subordinates who, during the time of the Soviet purges, directed the arrests and deaths of innumerable individuals; all of Mao's minions who so efficiently effected the disappearance of large portions of the Chinese population -certainly all of these people were compensated psychopaths.

I am reminded of Adolf Eichmann (the German Nazi official who as head of the Gestapo's Jewish section was chiefly responsible as the organizer of the "Final Solution"), a man who was relatively conscientious and dependable. Not a devilish moster, he was rather a classic example of a compensated psychopath whose conscientiousness was greater than that of most individuals. He loyally and admirably carried out the "duty," of exterminating his fellow humans, but his very dedication to "duty," expressing his own alienation in this world, vented so heinously his hate towards all human beings who were not like him. The commandant of a concentration camp wrote in his diary at the close of the war: "It is very sad that I can no longer fill my daily quotas in the gas chambers. I have neither enough staff nor enough supplies. Every night I go to bed with a nagging conscience, because I have been unable to do my duty." We can see how conscientious this man was. A classic, compensated psychopath, he had a strong, rigid, "moral" system but not the slightest sense of eros. The morality which sought to replace the missing eros turned into a farce becoming a caricature.

Compensated psychopaths are probably the most reliable supporters of a dictatorial regime, the emphasis being upon "compensated." A dictator would not function surrounded only with "pure" psychopaths -his regime would achieve nothing, eventually collapsing in utter chaos. A dictator's subordinates have to be conscientious and obedient -in a word, compensated psychopaths.

Some of this rings true to me, particularly the beginning. I am not sure about the conjecture regarding historical figures. I believe that mob mentality and the pressure to conform can be enough to convert an average, weak-willed citizen into a monster. I also think the degree of conformity amongst the masses in the regimes mentioned were too high to be filled entirely from the classes of "compensated psychopaths." Still, I can see how this might lead some to initiate moral crusades, whether as big as the Inquisition, or as small as Qur'an burning or throwing acid in someone's face.