On Psychopathy and Lying

After reading this post from LoveFraud.com I'm anxious to read the recommended book, Criminal Interrogation: A Modern Format for Interrogating Criminal Suspects Based on the Intellectual Approach, by Warren D. Holmes.

From LoveFraud.com:

Many Lovefraud readers have expressed the desire to know how to “out” a psychopath/sociopath. In this book Mr. Holmes gives his ideas about this subject. In his Chapter “How People Lie” he discusses the neurotic liar and compares lies told by these people to psychopathic liars. He has also listed and categorized what he calls “liar statements.” These are statements that signal someone is lying. In reading his list, I found that psychopaths/sociopaths use many of these.

Here are his categories of liar statements:

To read the list and the rest of the article go here.

It Ain't Personal

On Feb. 17, 2008 I posted this blog about being "Devalued and Thrown on the Junk Heap". In the comments on the 18th I described the cat and mouse game of the narcissist. This was because there was a discussion on my assertion that what the narcissist does to you isn't personal. I used the cat and mouse as a way to describe the perspective of the predator toward its prey.

I mention the dates because I wanted it to be clear that I wrote about this before the author of this article did. His article came out on the 21st of Feb. His article is titled "Psychopaths' Cat and Mouse Game". What I really liked about the author's use of this analogy is that he took it to the same place I did...that it ain't personal:

When the psychopath takes you for a ride—that is, when he is victimizing people—it’s really not personal: You’re simply not enough of a person for it to be personal. In the psychopath’s eyes, you are an expedient, nothing more. When he crosses your path, the psychopath is assessing your expediency. He is asking himself, “Is there something this impending-sucker has for me? Is there something I can take from this fool that I want? Something I can take that will make me feel good?”

I realize this article is talking specifically about psychopaths, nevertheless, it applies to malignant narcissists as well. This is because both psychopaths and malignant narcissists are predatory. Since most psychopaths do not become serial killers the fact is most of their torment of their victims is psychological. Just like narcissists. Dr. Hare has established the fact that all psychopaths have a narcissistic personality pattern. Therefore, when we talk about psychopaths we can apply much of the discussion to malignant narcissists.

It really can't be over-emphasized that it isn't personal. Again, this is an important thing to grasp because it is essential for you to really know and feel how objectified you are in the narcissist's eyes. You are an object. Not a person.

Part of their manipulation of us is how they will pretend there is an emotional bond between you and them. You believe that they must love you in "their way". So you hang in there. You swallow more lies. You stick around because you live in vain hope of change. You feel guilty for breaking contact because you believe them when they say they love you. Instead of seeing how they use the word 'love' to keep you stuck, you choose to believe they care in some way because you care about them (being the decent person you are). And because you stay, they continue to have the power to torment you. Yes, it feels personal as they adjust their torments to your reactions. You mustn't be fooled by the customization of their torture of you. It is just how they maximize the amount of amusement they gain at your expense. It is all about their pleasure, their gain, their lusts. It's not about you.

If you have determined that you are in a relationship with a narcissist or psychopath you need to expunge the word love from your expectations of them or your beliefs about their feelings toward you, or anyone. They do not know what love is. They can say the word. That is all it is to them -- a word. They know the power that little word has over you, but they do not experience love on an emotional level. They only use the word because they know it has emotional meaning to you. If you can really absorb the reality that they don't love you, that they never loved you, it will greatly facilitate your ability to walk away. And not only walk away, but to disentangle your own emotions from them. Residual worry on your part that you've 'hurt' them in some way emotionally by leaving will vanish because you will know down to your bone marrow that they were never connected to you emotionally by bonds of love. Or even hate. You were no more a person than your Lazy Boy lounge chair in the living room. When you can really know that, you'll be free both body and soul.

Remember my maxim: when words contradict actions you must believe the actions over the words or you'll end up being someone's meal. Don't believe protestations of love when the actions consistently contradict how love is truly demonstrated. Add to that this truth as it applies to torments dished out by narcissists: it ain't personal. You are only a means to an end to them.

For the full article mentioned above, read here.

How to Communicate with a Narcissist...If You Must

Sometimes it isn't possible to avoid a narcissist. My advice has consistently been to cut off contact with narcissists because of the futility of trying to have a relationship with these debauched and predatory types with the wizened soul of a demon. Unfortunately, sometimes you can't avoid dealing with a narcissist. This is often the case when you work for one. If the narcissist is a family member, perhaps you aren't willing to cut them completely off because you have successfully minimized contact. Fact is, we sometimes have to find ways to get along with a narcissist while still trying to maintain some boundaries. To successfully accomplish this one needs some tools. These tools come from recognizing the primary motivations and world view of the narcissist.

Here is a link to a PDF article by Steve Becker, LCSW, CHT...a psychotherapist. The article is titled, "Communicating with Narcissistic Personalities".

Another interesting article at his site is here and is titled "Differentiating Narcissists and Psychopaths". Both articles seem right on to me.

A thought I have about differentiating between narcissists and psychopaths runs along this line. The fact that we need some help to tell the difference tells me that the differences are small. In practical reality, the effects of the behaviors of the two are essentially the same. It matters not whether you are dealing with one or the other...both will wreak the same types of destruction in the lives around them. So what if the narcissist has a need for validation and some remnant of a conscience left when the psychopath doesn't? When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of living life, the fact that you can't usually tell between the narcissist's and the psychopath's underlying motivations because their outward behaviors are essentially identical tells me all I need to know. I would never knowingly keep a psychopath in my life because they are dangerous. A narcissist is rarely any less dangerous to life, health and wealth. Said another and simpler way: both are personifications of evil. Both are dangerous.

The fact that we need a primer on how to tell the difference between two types of evil tells us we would be wise to distance ourselves from either form. One is not less evil than the other. They are simply variations on a theme. Two points on a continuum.

Good Liars? Or Just Practiced Diversion Artists?

Dr. Robert Hare tells us that psychopaths are not the good liars they are generally acclaimed as being. In his book "Without Conscience" in the chapter titled Words from an Overcoat Pocket he outlines the anomalies of the way psychopaths use language. More accurately, how they misuse language. And some really interesting reasons as to why.

Please don't be distracted by my referring to Hare's work with psychopaths. The character-disordered have one thing in common: they lie. A lot. Lying is pervasive throughout all their interactions with others. As I have highlighted before, Dr. Hare has established that all psychopaths have a pervasive narcissistic personality. So, even on their best day, a malignant narcissist has much more in common with the psychopath than with the rest of us. Also, I know that some of you who read this blog are dealing with someone who is closer to the psychopath than not.

I have observed before that the malignant narcissist prostitutes language to their own ends. They pervert the use of language in order to destroy true communication. The purpose of language is to communicate. Narcissists use language to do the opposite. Obscure, mislead, divert, confuse. This is perversion. By perversion I am using this definition: "To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse."

"Although psychopaths lie a lot, they are not the skilled liars we often make them out to be. As I discussed earlier, their speech is full of inconsistent or contradictory statements. Psychopaths may play mental Scrabble, but they sometimes do it badly because they fail to integrate the pieces into a coherent whole; their truth line is fragmented and patchy, at best..." Without Conscience, pg. 136

So why are we often fooled by the inconsistencies and illogic of their statements? Hare states,

"[Victims] might not notice the discrepancy, particularly if they are engrossed in the action." Ibid. pg. 137 Emphasis mine.

When we are stuck in the moment with the liar there is much which is going on. They are masters of distraction. Constantly scanning your face and body language for cues as to how they should be responding to you at any particular moment, they dance here and there and zig and zag in order to lead you to whatever conclusion works best for them.

What I found particularly intriguing in this chapter of the book was Hare's analysis of the hand gestures which accompany the words under the chapter subtitle "Watch Their Hands". After accounting for the fact that certain cultures use more meaningless hand gestures than others, he then describes how psychopaths use many more "beats" (small, rapid hand gestures which are "empty" of meaning) as they talk. We all use "beats" to help us connect our words to our thoughts. The harder it is to come up with a word to describe our thoughts the more we will employ these empty hand gestures. People who are not speaking in their native tongue will use many more "beats" as they search around for the right word.

"A high rate of beat gestures appears to reflect difficulty in converting thoughts and feelings into speech." pg. 135

"Recent evidence suggests that psychopaths use more beats than do normal people, particularly when they talk about things generally considered emotional..." pg. 136 [emphasis author's]

Hare follows up this statement with what can be inferred from this evidence. You can read the book yourself to see his second inference because you need the context of the chapter to understand it, but the first one is that "emotion is like a second language to the psychopath."

To quote Spock, "fascinating".

I have talked about my mother's ridiculously animated hand gestures before like here and here. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens consistently when she is "playing" to an audience. I almost wish now that I was still in contact with her so I could study her hand gestures in light of Hare's information. He offers this excessive use of hand gestures as a sign of possible psychopathy. It can be a signal that the person you're talking to is having a difficult time finding the right "emotional" words to use. Groping around like someone whose second language is English, this person is not at home using words which communicate an emotional punch.

Put this one in your tool box. When you see something beating the air with their hands it may simply mean this person is having a hard time finding the words for whatever reason. But if you are conversing with someone who consistently and excessively uses "beats", at least consider the possibility that you are dealing with a narcissistic and/or psychopathic individual. It is a piece of evidence. It only has significance as it correlates with other supporting evidence. In isolation it may be meaningless.

"Expansive hand movements and exaggerated facial expressions" are part of the "dramatic display" which can blind us to the nonsensical, the odd, the illogic of the conversant. It can divert and mesmerize the smartest person. Makes me think again of the killdeer. If you've ever stepped near their eggs or young you've seen the impressive display. They are suddenly and loudly calling with their piercing vocals while running, limping and dragging a wing. Between the vocals and gestures you are diverted from the truth: that their vulnerable young are near by. Once the perceived predator has been lured a safe distance from their young by the deceptive act, the adult killdeer bursts into flight off away from the direction of its young.

In a similar way we can become entranced and distracted by an animated display and led away from the truth. The diversion artist has once again evaded real communication and hidden the truth from view.

"Society runs on trust, and we ordinarily pay more attention to what someone says than to the accompanying nonverbal behavior--hand gestures, facial movements, smiles, eye contact. However, when the speaker is attractive and gives a really impressive nonverbal performance, the effect can be reversed--we watch the show and pay little attention to what is said." Without Conscience, pg. 145

Narcissist or psychopath....both are human predators

Psychopathy is an extremely researched area of psychology, although this diagnosis is not in the DSM IV. Dr. Robert Hare is the recognized expert in this field and has defined the concept. What has this to do with narcissism? Glad you asked. The clinical tool used to diagnose psychopathy, as developed by Hare, is called the PCL-R. Half of the checklist (Factor 1) correlates with narcissistic personality disorder and defines the core personality traits of psychopathy . The Wikipedia entry on the PCL-R is concise and provides a decent introduction to this diagnostic device.

What is becoming more well-recognized in professional circles is that all psychopaths are narcissists. We are supposed to believe, though, that not all narcissists are psychopaths. I'm becoming less and less sure of this being true. If psychopathy is only identified as such if a person demonstrates certain behaviors, yes, we can accurately state that not all narcissists are psychopaths. But one of Dr. Hare's assertions based on his profoundly extensive research is that the vast majority of psychopaths live "peacefully" among us. Most do not commit violent crimes. See "Snakes in Suits" and "Without Conscience". Dr. Hare has been leading the charge to change the DSM IV criteria to move away from a behavior-only checklist (as it is in the DSM III-R) towards the more comprehensive checklist that includes narcissism as the core definition of the personality of the psychopath. One of the reasons for this is his recognition of the fact that some psychopaths slip through the cracks because the context of their lives has allowed them to circumvent certain behaviors such as violent crimes or other anti-social behaviors. So if a psychopath can only be diagnosed as psychopathic by exhibiting certain behaviors then he is allowed to continue his predations with little to no interference from the law or the psych community. Worse yet, the undiagnosed psychopaths end up in remedial programs that worsen their behaviors. Psychopaths require a much different approach than we take with non-psychopaths otherwise we unleash a more sophisticated manipulator onto the general public. Dr. Hare presents a strong case for using a more comprehensive tool to diagnose psychopathy. He insists the tool must include an analysis of personality type/affect/interpersonal impressions if doctors are going to accurately detect a higher percentage of these people. The constant with psychopaths is not how they behave but who they are i.e. personality traits. This is why Dr. Hare has included the checklist for narcissistic personality traits into the PCL-R. This checklist, which includes personality type, is especially important in prison populations where recidivism rates for certain offenders must be considered. The PCL-R has been proven to be the best predictor of recidivism that exists. Dr. Hare's intentional movement away from behavior-only based checklists to a more comprehensive checklist which includes personality traits has resulted in a highly effective tool for detection of psychopathy.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is: at what point does the narcissist become a full-blown psychopath? Is there a clear demarcation line, or is it all kind of fuzzy? Was Jim Jones only a narcissist who suddenly became a psychopath the day he got all his followers to drink the Kool-Aid? That kind of reasoning defies logic. If he was a psychopath on that fateful day, then should we not reasonably conclude he was a psychopath long before this violent act? If psychopathy is only present once violence has been employed then the logic works. But when the leading research on the subject keeps clarifying that psychopathy can be present without violence then we really need to re-think the way we categorize.

Speaking of categorization...I think we would all do well to remember the rather arbitrary lines that have been drawn up for us by the psych community. They are allowed the freedom to re-draw the lines as they deem necessary which only tends to prove the non-scientific nature of the categorization. What I have been glad to see is how much true science has been employed in the research on psychopathy. The result of which is showing that narcissists come in many flavors...some of which we call psychopaths.

At this point in time it is looking like the only clear difference between the malignant narcissist and the narcissistic psychopath is the level of risk-taking they are comfortable with. Considering that predatory behavior is not just the realm of the psychopath but also one of the defining characteristics of narcissists, we should really consider the narcissist to be just as dangerous to human society as the psychopath even if we are not willing to call them psychopaths. Narcissists leave a trail of human devastation and ruined lives in their paths. They waltz through life rarely detected because they don't actually leave a bunch of bodies buried under their houses like John Wayne Gacy. No, they just cruelly destroy souls which is arguably just as horrid as what the violent psychopath does.

Narcissist or psychopath? Seems the differences are fewer than the similarities. Be aware that either way you are dealing with a psychological predator. Safety is only achieved through distance. You've been warned.

Is There Good in Everyone?

You've been psychologically tortured and abused by a narcissist/sociopath/psychopath family member. You finally tell another family member what you've experienced. What you get back from this person is a "sermon" on how there is good in everyone. You haven't looked hard enough for it. Everyone has redeeming features; if you haven't found them then you are just not looking.

Implied in this sermon is that the deficiency is in you. Also inherent in these comments is the belief, perpetuated by humanistic psychology, that everyone is basically "good". There is no room in this anthropological theory for the concept of evil. Bad people don't exist. Malevolence is a figment of your imagination.

The person who says things like this to you has something to gain. Perhaps they are trying to keep you from "rocking the boat". Maybe this land of denial they live in is how they keep from having to deal with anything difficult. Fear of confrontation. Fear of standing on principle. Lots of people are afraid of principle if by having one it'll cause them some discomfort. So they become unprincipled which allows the evil people to flourish.

So, let's get back to the idea that you just need to look harder and find the "good" in the person who makes a living by sucking your life from you. First of all, if you have to hunt that hard to find some good in someone it simply isn't there. Another thing is this: there are many deeds a person can do that can appear to be "good" but are not. Look closely and you'll see the "good" done by a consistently evil person is self-serving. They try to appear good in certain situations (i.e. when others are looking) so as to get away with being evil! It is a ruse. A guise. An occasional "good" deed does not weigh the balances against a consistent life of bad deeds.

Let's look at a historical figure. I think most reasonable people can agree that Hitler was an evil man. His complete obsession with wiping the Jews, gypsies, people of Slavic origin, mental deficients and the physically impaired off the face of the planet seems to be sufficient evidence to decent people that this man was an evil psychopath. What good deed could he do that would be adequate to the task of mitigating his evil? Again, reasonable minds could probably agree that nothing he could do would be good enough to outweigh the vast evil of his homocidal hatred of certain classes of people. Some people have actually tried to find the "human side" of Hitler. He loved animals. He was vegetarian. He was able to unite Germany. These are some of the things brought up by apologists for Hitler who try to minimize his evil. He wasn't evil, he was misunderstood. He was a little misguided in some respects, but he was a great leader. Okay, if that works for you then you can go surf off somewhere else because I can't say anything that you will agree with. The truth is that there was no "good" in Hitler that could outweigh his evil deeds. It is rare for a malevolent, evil person to have no qualities that can be construed to be "good". For the naive, the ridiculously stupid, or other evil people, those "good" qualities can outweigh a life of consistent evil. For the sane and principled those "good" qualities are seen for what they are...a mask. An aberration. Yes, for the evil person a "good" deed is an aberration!

So what if you can find some "good" in an abusive person. If you have to hunt around, stretch your imagination or wrack your brain to find the "good", then, honey, it just tain't there. Face facts. Don't let yourself be confused by the silly idea out there that if you can find ONE good thing in someone then you have proof positive that person is not evil after all. It is that kind of thinking that will keep you enslaved. You are allowed to call evil by its right name. You are allowed to distance yourself from it. It is called self-preservation. Self-defense is a fundamental right of all living creatures. Exert your right to live. Shrug off the small-minded thinking out there that puts on such a pretense of bigness and righteousness by pretending that evil people aren't evil. In my mind, these mental midgets are just as dangerous because they do nothing to stop evil. Their stupid philosophy perpetuates evil. Distance yourself from the evil people in your life...and that includes the idiot who tells you to hunt for the good in an abuser.

Narcissist or Psychopath

Just points along the continuum...

What happens if a person does manage to completely overcome their conscience so it disturbs them no more? Welcome to the unveiling of the psychopath. The psychopath has thrown off all constrictions of conscience and, consequently, societal strictures, thus making them capable of the most heartless and base crimes against humanity while they smirk and talk about how the victim deserved what they got. I'm not saying all, or even many narcissists, turn into psychopaths. There is no evidence for that, and I certainly don't believe it. I do believe it is accurate to assert, though, that all psychopaths are narcissists. More and more professionals are coming to see malignant narcissism as a continuum. A psychopath is the endpoint on that continuum of narcissism.

But our study here is the narcissist. The narcissist still has a conscience and, therefore, hides her crimes under a cloak of self-made righteousness. This pretense is unnecessary for someone who no longer has to assuage the urgent provocations of a conscience and no longer cares what others think (the psychopath).

How do we know the narcissist still has an operational conscience? Let's ask the question another way. How do we know the narcissist is aware of the difference between right and wrong? Because of the multiplied and extensive efforts they make to hide their bad acts. The truly insane person is defined as an individual who is unable to distinguish right from wrong and will therefore commit their crimes regardless of who is looking on. Their lack of any attempt to hide their crimes is how we determine they are insane, i.e. they lack rational ability and conscience. (By this definition, psychopaths are not insane. Rarely will our justice system allow a psychopath to claim insanity when the evidence shows the psychopath's many efforts to hide his crimes.) We don't see true insanity in the narcissist. We see them presenting an image of perfection to outsiders then going home to beat the wife and sexually abuse the kid. Then they will pull your face close to theirs and through snarling lips and gritted teeth tell you that if you try to expose their bad deed they will destroy you. This person knows what they are doing is wrong. They are careful as to when and where they commit their base acts. Only the helpless and the vulnerable get to see the fully unmasked narcissist. This is all the proof we need that they do indeed possess a conscience. Albeit, a perverted, abused and malfunctioning one.

The narcissist still has a conscience, as evidenced by their multiplied efforts to hide their bad acts. We have clear proof they know the difference between right and wrong. What are the implications of this reality? Tune in to future musings...