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

A Clarification on the Last Post

I would like to make it very, very clear that I am not advocating the pathologizing of victims. It is very possible to be schmoozed and fooled into believing a narcissist is Prince or Princess Charming who then, once you are dependent on them financially and otherwise, will show you the fangs behind closed doors. People can unwittingly be caught and trapped into relationships with malignant narcissists. I hope you saw my consistent use of the words "choice" and "will" and other iterations of words which clearly showed I am referring to people who can and are able to walk away from a situation.

I would also like to state that very often there are ways out of a relationship with a narcissist even though it may look like a hopeless trap. It may require stealth, careful planning and lots of time, but a way can be cleared to make it out as long as you're not chained in the basement or have a gun to your head. I have seen more than one trapped adult who appeared to have no options think their way out of what looked like an impossible bind. Difficult does not mean impossible. While it is cruel to pathologize victims, it would also be cruel to say that victims must remain victims.

My father is, again, an example of the kind of person I am describing in this post. He is not financially dependent on my mother. He is amazingly psychologically independent of her as well. He lives a very social and active life apart from her. He is an accomplished and avid fisherman who has built a camaraderie of friendships around this hobby. He plans long fishing trips with great frequency which gives him many blocks of time away from my mother. He remains in his marriage with my mother by choice. He could walk away and she'd only get half of what he owns...and half would be plenty to live on. He isn't even a religious man; so religious compunction is not dictating that he stay married to my mom. There is obviously a symbiosis. He is getting something from this close association with my mother and her evil. While it is rather mysterious and unknowable from outside their relationship (though I could come up with some good guesses)...he is getting something for himself from staying with her. He can only stay with her because he is morally compromised himself. His lack of integrity and moral straightness becomes evident when tested against my mother's overt bad deeds. He excuses, rationalizes and ultimately supports her bad deeds by renaming them. He proves his corruption by his acquiescence to her evil for the sake of his quest for peace at all costs. He consistently chooses easy over right. I have a boat load of evidence to prove he is in this marriage by choice.

When you can walk away but don't...the reason lies inside of you. That is what I'm challenging people to look at in my last post.

Dancing with the Devil

Yesterday morning I decided to thumb through M. Scott Peck, M.D,'s book, "People of the Lie". It has been more than a couple years since I read his book. A recent comment in an email from one of the readers of my blog made me think it was time for me to refresh my memory on what Peck covers in his book. My eye quickly lighted upon Peck's assertion that adults do not accidentally end up in close relationships with evil people. He uses the term "willing thralldom" and contrasts it with the plight of children who, through no choice of their own, are enslaved to evil parents.

Peck relates his experience with a very disturbed (and disturbing) couple -- Sarah and Hartley. In the context of this story he states:

"We do not become partners to evil by accident. As adults we are not forced by fate to become trapped by an evil power, we set the trap ourselves." pg. 118

Referring to Hartley:

"Theoretically he could have just walked away from Sarah. But he had bound himself to her by chains of laziness and dependency, and though titularly an adult, he had settled for the child's impotence. Whenever adults not at gunpoint become victims of evil it is because they have--one way or another--make Hartley's bargain." pg. 119-120

The bargain was to settle into a type of slavery because his moral laziness and dependency was a larger part of his character than not.

"He entered into a submissive relationship with evil precisely because he was partially evil himself." (footnote pg. 118)

I'm using Peck to reiterate my previous theme: moral laziness puts us on the path to evil. You can not walk on the evil path without becoming, at least in part, evil yourself.

Once we are adults we are no longer helpless as we were as children. This is true for adults: to the extent you've compromised with evil; to the extent you've entered into a truce with evil -- that that extent you yourself are evil. Some part of you is comfortable and "at home" with the evil you've accepted, excused or compromised with.

Contrary to popular theory on relationships that "opposites attract", the reality is "like attracts like". The saying "water seeks its own level" is a recognition of this observable truth. The attraction is not due to a perfect outward likeness that is visually evident and obvious. It is an attraction based on symbiosis. In some way there is a fit. There is a relationship between two (or more) people which is mutually beneficial, or perceived on some level by them as being mutually beneficial.

It is not always possible for someone outside a relationship to know how the two parties are mutually benefiting from the relationship. Outwardly we may conclude we are seeing two opposites. We have to avoid this kind of simplistic acceptance of outward appearances when we observe a relationship between adults who have chosen to be together and who hang together tenaciously. One person may appear to be evil and the other "in thralldom" to the partner's evil. We must accept the reality they are both evil though likely not equally so.

If you, as an adult, try to make yourself believe you must remain in a relationship with someone you know is evil you must ask yourself the question: in what way have I made a deal with the devil? In what way have I compromised my integrity and taken the easy route morally so that I can co-exist with evil? No adult stays "in thralldom" to evil except by a choice of the will. You can wiggle, argue and poo-poo this statement, but it still remains true.

It is observable all throughout human society: we gravitate toward those who are like us. There is a natural tendency for people to associate based on ethnicity, religion, race, educational level, families, etc. Why can we not see that humanity chooses to associate with those who are morally similar?

We see this played out all the time with teenagers. Teens are old enough to figure out a way to do what they want to do. You can guide, shape and shelter your children, but when they reach a certain age they will choose their peers based on their hidden inner life. A kid can look like he is outwardly conforming to expectations, but the real test of the teen character is what associations he chooses because teens have reached an age where they are largely responsible for their choices in friendships. Many parents will refuse to believe that Johnny has fallen in with a "bad crowd" because he chose to. They assume that Johnny was a good boy right up until he was somehow corrupted by some bad kids. The truth is that Johnny felt a resonance with the "bad crowd". Some part of him was attracted to their badness. You have not been privy to Johnny's inner landscape. His private thoughts and fantasies. His desires only heretofore checked by lack of opportunity.

Not all teens pick evil associations. We see many teens choosing good friends. Friends who take their education seriously, who obey their parents, who submit to the rules of parents and school, who choose not to have sex. Just as it is no accident that Johnny picked the bad crowd, the teens who pick good friends did not do so accidentally. They deserve credit for the good choices just as Johnny deserves blame for picking bad friends.

You need to correctly analyze the relationships you are in and the relationships you see around you as it relates to the narcissist. You need to recognize that adults choose their associations. They remain in close association with evil when they themselves have compromised themselves morally. When we let life just carry us along and pretend that we are in a bad relationship because of some vagary of fate we have a sign that we've taken the lazy course. Moral laziness is the path to destruction.

It can be argued that the greatest failing of the evil is their absolute refusal to recognize their own evil. We may be basically decent people with grave moral failings which could be classified as evil because they have damaged ourselves and others. But we distinguish ourselves from the character disordered and evil personalities by being willing to introspect and identify our moral failings, acknowledge those moral failings, make restitution for our bad acts and to turn resolutely from our bad ways. Truly evil people will never allow themselves to see themselves as evil. They will scapegoat all their evil onto someone else to falsely maintain a sense of purity and perfection. When we refuse to scapegoat our bad acts onto someone or something outside ourselves; when we are willing to acknowledge to ourselves that we've compromised with evil; when we resolutely turn from doing the evil we've practiced in the past-- then we can clearly differentiate ourselves from those who are evil.

Don't make excuses for yourself or for others for staying in close relationship with evil people. Recognize the dynamic of symbiosis that is occurring. Unless an adult is physically being held hostage, that adult has a choice as to whether or not to stay in association with an evil character. Knowing this to be true, do not attempt to "rescue" someone who is dancing in lock-step with a narcissist. They must be avoided along with the narcissist because they are morally compromised. Whether due to laziness, psychological dependence, greed, shared power...adults stay in relationship with evil people because they choose to. They feel they have something to gain by the association. Acknowledge to yourself this reality and live accordingly.

Just because someone else has chosen to dance with the devil it doesn't justify you doing the same. Take responsibility for the choices that keep you locked in a tango with evil people. You have no one to blame but yourself if after realizing you're dancing with evil you choose to remain where you are. Once you are willing to own the fact that your own choices have put you where you are, you are much more likely to start making different choices. Remember:

"As adults we are not forced by fate to become trapped by an evil power, we set the trap ourselves..."

Watch Out for the Easy Path

The book,"In Sheep's Clothing", which I referenced in the last post gives a list of seven specific distorted thinking patterns of character-disordered people (pages 22-23). A quick look at the list without the full descriptions is as follows:

• Self-focused (self-centered) thinking.
• Possessive thinking.
• Extreme (all-or-none) thinking.
• Egomaniacal thinking.
• Shameless thinking.
• Quick and easy thinking.
• Guiltless thinking.

I want to focus on number six--quick and easy thinking:

"The disturbed character always wants things the easy way. He hates to put forth effort or accept obligation. He gets far more joy out of 'conning' people. This way of thinking promotes an attitude of disdain for labor and effort." (Emphasis mine.)

The laziness described above is primarily a moral laziness. It feels easier to run a "confidence" game than it does to live by the rules. The morally lazy disordered character actually looks down on those of us who live by rules. This is where the "attitude of disdain" comes in. We are dupes for staying within the lines. We deserve to get "taken" because we are "stupid" for being constricted by rules that can be easily broken. The disturbed character grants you no points for being moral. Your morality is your weakness, in their eyes. They look down on you for it.

Over the last few years I have been forcefully made aware of a truth:

The easy course is usually the evil course.

Let's stand back and and look at this from a broader perspective. By broader, I mean let's take it out of the realm of the disordered character and superimpose this truth over all humanity. You don't have to be a disordered character to be morally lazy.

The most personal illustration for me of this reality is the life of my father. He is most definitely not a disordered character. Everyone who knows him thinks very highly of him. He is considered a very decent human. He is very personable and helpful. He is very competent in all that he does. To his family (immediate and extended) he has become a different man. When it would have counted he has been too morally weak to stand up to his wife to defend his children (or other family). He has, time and again, chosen the easiest course in dealing with his disordered charactered wife...capitulation...and left the weakest and most defenseless in her clutches without accountability. He studied his own convenience resulting in him taking the path of least resistance. His weak moral decisions has resulted in a trail of woe for others that is beyond calculation. He took the easy course and thereby enabled and supported evil. Evil has flourished in his own house because of his moral capitulation.

It hasn't stopped with his supporting my mother's evil. Evil has infected his own soul. As he has aged he has become bitter and cynical. He is almost constantly angry. He is quick to think the worst of others. He has imbibed deeply of my mother's spirit. For many years he has surrendered his integrity in order to keep my mother "happy". He demands all of his family to do the same. But, of course, he can not see he is demanding we surrender our own integrity. He has renamed his loss of integrity to be loyalty. He has adopted the "mob family mentality" in order to make his moral decrepitude into moral superiority. He has adopted the mindset of an abuser because he has justified my mother's abuse. He is now tyrannical because he has justified his wife's tyranny over others. He is immoral because he has justified her immorality. It is a cryin' shame. I have watched a man deteriorate over the years both physically and morally. A good man has been thoroughly corrupted by the evil he has capitulated to for decades.

This is the problem with taking the morally easy course. You can be an overall very good person, but a lifetime of moral laziness in one area of your life will eventually infect the whole person. You can not confine your immorality to one area of your life for ever. Eventually that area of your life will touch other areas. You find yourself rationalizing and capitulating in another area. And another. All in order to justify your original capitulation. Giving into someone else's immorality, over the course of time, will infect your own morality. It is a dangerous thing to do the easy thing. To study your own comfort, to cherish your own convenience is often the doorway which opens your soul to making immoral choices.

It is the human experience that we are all confronted with making a choice between doing the right thing and doing what is easiest. I am challenging you to separate yourself out from the disordered thinking of the character disordered. The disordered character lives by the criminal code of "quick and easy". All humans are frequently confronted by having to make a choice between "quick and easy" and the right thing. The more often you chose right over easy the better person you will be.

We can not afford to be morally lazy when dealing with the malignant narcissist. My father is an example of the corruption of a soul who chose easy over principled when dealing with his malignantly narcissistic wife. Constant capitulation to the narcissist's immoral demands will erode your self-respect. The less self-respect you have, the more easily you can justify taking the easy road. You seriously risk becoming evil yourself.

Adult children of narcissists have usually witnessed this truth in their own families. Usually ACONs have only one parent with NPD. It is very often believed that the other non-NPD parent is the "good" parent. This is rarely true. The person who stands by and knowingly allows an abuser to abuse is arguably even more evil than the abuser. Why do I think that? Because often the abuser abuses out of their subjective emotional reactions. The parent standing by is more emotionally objective. They are not embroiled in the abuser's emotional state therefore they can more clearly see the wrongness of the abuse. Yet they stand by. How frakking evil is that??!! A grown adult who can stand by and allow an abuser to hurt his or her own children is evil. Period. You can not capitulate to evil and not become evil yourself.

Know it. Live by it.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt. 7:13 NIV

Disordered Thinking

"The disordered character has plenty of insight and awareness but despite it, resists changing his/her attitudes and core beliefs. CDO's (character-disordered individuals) don't need any more insight. What they need and can benefit from are limits, confrontation, and most especially, correction. Cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approaches appropriate." page 21 In Sheep's Clothing; Understanding and Dealing With Manipulative People by George K. Simon, Jr., Ph.D.

The author then goes on to explain, "Most especially, disordered characters don't think the way most of us do. In recent years, researchers have come to realize the importance of recognizing that fact. What we think, how we believe, and what attitudes we develop largely determine how we will act." page 22

I am not going to argue whether or not NPD is character disorder. The entire premise my blog is predicated on is that NPD is a character disorder. Most of the time the terms "personality disorder" and "character disorder" (PD & CD) are used interchangeably by the professionals though there is a move toward classifying CD as a sub-set of PD. Whatever. The classifications are anything but scientific. Nevertheless, even when CD is considered a sub-set of PDs, malignant narcissism still fits the criteria of a CD. So the above quotes are applicable to NPD.

One point I'd like you to take away from these quotes is that a character-disordered individual is the sum product of disordered thinking. These disordered thinking patterns are entrenched as evidenced by the fact that a CD person can have "plenty of insight and awareness" but they do not apply those insights and awareness to their belief system. This is important to note because of the ways we often try to effect change in the narcissist. We try to appeal to their reasoning. We try to appeal to their heart. Neither approach has any hope of making a dent.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that they don't understand your reasoning or appeals to their heart or conscience. They "have plenty of insight and awareness". They do understand. They reject your appeals and your logic. They are able to completely deflect your reasoning and your emotional appeals. They will not allow you to change their belief system based on intellectual or emotional approaches.

Please be sure to interpret the imperviousness the narcissist demonstrates to an active and willful rejection of both your rational logic and your emotional appeals. This will enable you to stop trying to say it yet again in a "better" way assuming that the fault lies in your inability to express yourself clearly when in truth the fault lies with the narcissist. They are able to understand you and still disagree with you.

Traditional psychotherapy has been battered and beaten by the character-disordered. The more honest appraisals of the psych community (led in part by people like Dr. Hare) have determined that psychotherapy actually worsens the behaviors of the character-disordered. They have taken note that traditional psychotherapeutic approaches simply provide tools with which the CD individual can then use to manipulate people in his environment including the therapists. Freud based his therapy models on the neurotic personality. On almost every point, character-disordered people differ from the neurotic. They are almost a completely inverse image of the neurotic. It makes a lot of sense that traditional therapeutic approaches would fail abysmally when confronted with the CD. And it has failed abysmally. This includes all the 12-step programs out there. They do not work on the CD. And considering how often the CD can end up ordered into 12-step programs due to their attendant behavior disorders (addictions, etc.) then we would do well to take note of the real threat of making the character-disordered worse through such programs.

The only time there has been any successful intervention with the CD is when cognitive-behavioral therapy has been used. As the author stated, "What they need and can benefit from are limits, confrontation, and most especially, correction. Cognitive-behavioral therapeutic approaches appropriate." Think of training a dog. You don't train an animal to "behave" by sitting it down and having a heart-to-heart. You don't attempt to train a dog by describing what you want from him very logically. If you are to have any hope of shaping the animal's behavior you will proceed to operate on a clear reward/punishment system based on their behaviors. The same is true with how we train our very young children. Clear limits. Confrontation. Correction. Young children will not learn how to properly behave because you tell him how it hurts your feelings when he misbehaves. He is also insensible to the rational and logical. We shape young children by setting clear limits and enforcing them. We dispense rewards and punishment based on the behavior. Long before the child's mind has developed fully he can be trained to behave within certain guidelines. This helps keep the child safe and it helps us to teach them self-control and respect for others when they are very young. It can be extremely difficult to teach a child these things if we wait until they are older before we start the lessons.

Where the adult narcissist differs from the dog or the child is the reality that they are autonomous adult human beings making choices. They are free-will agents. This is why, when the narcissist refuses to change their behaviors, we are wise if we accept the narcissist's decision to behave how they do and get the hell out of their lives. We have almost no power to persuade them to change how they think in order to change how they behave.

If you must stay in the narcissist's life then you must follow the above guidelines for interacting with them. Firm limits. Confronting their bad behaviors. Following through on consequences for their bad behavior. Do not waste your time appealing to their "conscience" or their logic centers. Those are armor-plated. Do not make the mistake that the narcissist thinks like you do. They do not feel like you do either. They do not interact with the world and their relationships in any way like you do.

We all do a fair amount of projecting in our inter-personal relationships. I'm not talking about the negative projection of narcissists. I'm talking about positive projection. If you are an honest individual you will very often assume that others are also honest and proceed to interact with others based on that assumption. There are obviously serious pit-falls to assuming that the narcissist has similar good motivations and thoughts as you yourself possess. It sets you up to get taken. We have to consciously suspend our usual projection onto others of our ways of thinking and feeling when dealing with the character-disordered. This is essential. This is also difficult for us to do. We can feel that we are being "bad" when we stop assuming the best about the narcissist. You need to ignore that feeling. The narcissist has much more in common in his thinking with the criminal than with you.

I clearly remember feeling confused when I was first coming to acknowledge to myself my mother's bad behaviors and her bad intent. I couldn't understand why she could do such things when she clearly knew better. My mother has always presented herself as a font of wisdom to the people in her life. In fact, I can actually credit her for helping me turn into a decent human being. Why? Because she can really preach a good sermon! This lady knows what truth is. As George Simon stated she "has plenty of insight and awareness". I was a very sincere child and I wanted more than anything to be good. So I took what she preached to me and applied it to my thinking and my behavior. What took me nearly four decades to realize was that she did not do the same. I assumed that when a person knows what truth is that they then apply it to their living. That is what I did. Not perfectly, by any means, but my constant motivation was to be a good and decent person. I projected that onto my mother. I assumed that because she knew the difference between right and wrong that she was endeavoring to do right and not wrong.

I can now clearly see how she is expert at honing the consciences of those around her in order to set herself up with an advantage over them! If I am constrained by my conscience and she isn't...then that means she can get away with anything. It is like playing a game with a little kid. They set the rules up so that they can always win because they rely on you to stick to the rules while they can fudge them at will so as to gain the advantage over you.

Disordered characters are the sum total of their disordered thinking. You have no power to change their thinking. Don't set yourself up for failure by continuing to try to reason and cajole them into a new way of thinking. It ain't gonna work. They'll just be better able to intuit how to parrot back to you what you want to hear so they can bamboozle you yet again.