Who is the sociopath?
PDF What a difficult question this is—exactly what defines the sociopath?
Joseph Neuman Ph.D, psychopathy researcher, in an extensive interview (see link to this interview previously provided by Donna Anderson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZgnCHweLM) addresses this and other questions about psychopaths.
Neuman’s research, if I understand him correctly (and I did not find him to be particularly clear in his explanations) yields a picture of the psychopath, surprisingly, not as primarily emotionally defective, but rather as emotionally defective secondary to certain forms of attentional problems.
Neuman makes some interesting and, to my mind, somewhat puzzling observations. For instance, and consistent with his basic premise, he actually suggests that psychopaths may be more inclined to genuinely assist someone they perceive to be in need than non-psychopaths. Did I hear that correctly? I think so.
Neuman also suggests that the psychopath’s capacity for this kind of humane response is unfortunately, or effectively, nullified (in others’ eyes) by his more antisocial, knucklehead behaviors. Did I hear this correctly, too? I think I did.
Neuman’s basic premise—again, if I understand him correctly—is that psychopaths aren’t so much fundamentally defective emotionally as much as their emotional capacities which, alas, may be much more normal than otherwise appreciated, are essentially obscured, effectively immobilized, by their over-attention, their over-focus on their particular, momentary interest(s).
So, to be clear, if I’m understanding Neuman, he’s suggesting that psychopaths (at least some, if not many) may indeed have normal emotions, perhaps even a normal range of emotions; the problem is that they don’t “attend” to their emotions because they aren’t “cueing” to the signals that should steer them to recognize, and be better regulated, by their emotions.
Neuman suggests that when psychopaths can be directed to focus on these cues and signals, his research shows that they can and do access a range of more normal emotions. This should and, Neuman says, does result in their coming under the better, and more appropriate, stewardship of their emotions (my italics, not his).
Now on one hand, Neuman says he’s not denying that an emotional deficit lies at the core of psychopathy. Yet it seems to me that this is exactly what he’s questioning! What he is saying in the interview, it seems to me, again and again, is that, at the heart of psychopathy is less an emotional deficit than a kind of attentional deficit, a signal-attuning deficit, the consequence of which is to detach the psychopath from connection to his underlying capacity to feel, and be better regulated in his behavior, by his emotions.
Now perhaps I’ve badly misinterpreted what I heard Neuman saying. I will leave that to other LoveFraud readers to weigh in.
Also, consistent with what I hear him saying throughout the interview, Neuman takes the rather radical stance that once a psychopath, not necessarily always, hopelessly, permanently a psychopath.
He suggests, rather, that if interventions can be developed that, for instance, can help psychopaths more effectively attune to the signals that will steer their attention to their healthier emotions, well then…NASA, we may have arrived at something of a cure, or palliative, for psychopathy.
He envisions interventions, if I understand him properly, that would effectively liberate the humanity within the psychopath, which is obscured, if not immobilized, by his attentional problems.
Because again, he is not saying that psychopaths necessarily lack emotions, or even a range of normal emotions; remember, he goes so far as to say that some psychopaths, including those with whom he’s worked, have shown evidence of an even greater (and genuine!) responsiveness to those in need than non-psychopaths. The problem, he stresses, is that psychopaths, by virtue of their overfocus on present, reward-driven interests, are basically disconnected from their emotions. At least this is what I understand him to be saying.
Neuman makes another interesting observation. Citing Hervey Cleckley, MD, he suggests that the psychopath may have an even weaker drive to acquire what he wants than the normal individual. The problem, he says, is that their “restraints” are even weaker than their “urges.” He describes this as a case of their “weaker urges breaking through even weaker restraints.”
Neuman also asserts that you can’t define psychopathy by behaviors and actions, including, he says, actions like “defrauding” people. I understand his general point—the idea that psychopathy’s essence may be more a reflection of a mentality than specific actions.
However, a pattern of certain actions, especially exploitive actions, can reflect, can reveal, the mind—and the disorder—behind it.
As I understand Neuman, let us say we have someone who is in the process of perpetrating a cold-blooded armed robbery—and not, say, the first he’s perpetrated. He’s prepared to bind, blindfold and shoot all potential witnesses to the crime. This way he can take what he came for and not get fingered, identified, in the act. Let us say he has done this before, remorselessly.
Neuman seems to suggest that, horrible as this act would be, it’s not necessarily indicative of a psychopath. Maybe he’s right.
But let’s say this individual is a Hare-diagnosed psychopath. Neuman also seems to be proposing the idea that the killer’s primary issue isn’t necessarily the absence, somewhere, of appropriate and potentially self-regulating emotion; rather, he’s so overfocused on taking care of the business at hand—robbing, and removing witnesses to the robbery—that he’s unable to attune to the kinds of signals that would lead him to recognize, and fall under the prosocial influence, of his more normal, humane emotions.
So that, if somehow, in the course of the perpetrating of his crime, you could somehow cue him to the signals that might lead him to recognize his more “humane” emotions, you might, theoretically, be able to short-circuit the robbery and coldblooded murdering of the witnesses!
Really? That’s an interesting concept, but it’s not one that strikes me as necessarily plausible. In general, as I listened to Neuman, I found that he depicted the psychopath specifically, and psychopathy in general, in terms that seemed to me much too benign; as if the psychopath, in Neuman’s view and based on his research, isn’t necessarily lacking in humanity as much as he’s lacking certain qualities that would enable his humanity to express itself in more visible, self-regulating, prosocial ways?
What was your take on the interview?
(This article is copyrighted (c) 2010 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is strictly for convenience’s sake and not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors and attitudes discussed.)
written by Steve Becker, LCSW • Permalink •
ErinBrock says:
Dear Eloquent Oxy….
I am deeply saddened to hear the news….It must be over between us!
I didn’t know you wouldn’t date someone who’s had several strokes……and I guess I would fit in that catagory!
It might help to know I did roll around in an electric wheelchair, but have since ditched that. ( I even did ballroom dancing in it in the driveway with the kids….until we noticed the scratches on the driveway and the skid pad missing the next morning)
I blame you completely for our breakup, since I was upfront and honest from the getgo.
I also must confess I take SAVDOA. That would be short for Synthroid, asprin, vit. D and occasional advil!
(and if I don’t take my synthroid….I could act real crazy I bet!)
If it helps….i’ve been acused of being mentally ill. I also was accused of being an alcoholic…..although I must admit…I’m not a ‘big’ drinker, so you can judge for yourself on that.
If it makes a difference to you darlen….I can hijack back my scooter from my Uncle with Parkinsons and make a concerted effort to be depressed??
Shoot….I can even try to bring you down with me!!!!
I want you back!!!!!!
XXOO
EB
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
Yes, I am too, undatable. I wouldn’t really blame a normal person for not dating me….I am the person your mother warned you about….
Self acceptance is a huge plus, for me, personally, though, I love me anyway, and I forgive me. I am giving myself the care I deserve.
I have been on both prosac and paxill at different times, and they were a God send. If they blunted my over abundance of bonding/ romance/ sex hormones, well, thank God.
I think I had WAY too much of those chemicals to begin with, and was sort of ruined by them…Ddoes that make any sense?
Oxy, I understand perfectly, the spirit of your post…I’m not offended. But, I thought EB’s response was very graceful and elegant.
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
Just to be clear, I AM NOT A SPATH. I have been spathed. I was spathable, and have been damaged by said spathability, was probably somewhat damaged/disfunctional even before the first spathing…but today, by the grace of God, I am spath-free and working on me.
Truly, the most amazing thing, and the biggest blessing of all is this: I don’t care anymore…not interested…don’t want a relationship. Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty; free at last.
(Report abusive comment)
bluejay says:
kim frederick,
We know that you’re not a spath, being one of us, normal folk.
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
Thanks, bluejay.
(Report abusive comment)
hens says:
Kimfrederick – EB – you guys crack me up.. I agree with Kim – as I age (56) and that is not old ~! I am glad my sexual appetite is waning because in the past my little head did most of the thinking for me and got me in alot of bad places, nowadays I think with my big head and make better choices and stay in the good places, if that makes sense. And I dont care, love me for my heart and mind or not at all..Specially in the homo world it seems to be about performance and I never wanted to be a porn star..So I am aging gracefully and glad my youth is behind me and now i can be just me. Dont get me wrong everything works fine but I just dont give a rats toot about it anymore…
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Spath made sex suck! And since I spent from 13-40 with him……..that’s what I knew of sex. It was for him…..not me.
I WANT ‘ME’ SEX! GOOD SEX, LOVING SEX, INTIMATE SEX, CARING SEX…….LOVE MAKING!
Touching, bonding, connection.
I trust, one day, when I do lose my 2nd virginity…..that I find a man who is worthy of ‘ME”.
Until then……I will remain a virgin….and like Hens…..continue to think with my big head!
(Report abusive comment)
Rosa says:
Erin Brock:
“I WANT ‘ME’ SEX! GOOD SEX, LOVING SEX, INTIMATE SEX, CARING SEX…….LOVE MAKING!
Touching, bonding, connection.
…Until then……I will remain a virgin….and like Hens…..continue to think with my big head!”
That’s all well and good. Towanda.
In the meantime, you need to spend $150….and I think you know what I’m talking about.
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Kimmie:
Just to be clear….I wasn’t offended by Oxy’s post either…..just took the opportunity to give shiat!
There are lot’s of peeps that wouldn’t be in the running to date me either.
I would prefer the perfect person……who that is ‘for me’ yet…..i’m not sure…..but some things are deal breakers…..
Character is very important. Authenticity, honesty, trust, humor…….
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Rosa…..
DONE!
(funny enough….it fit’s all my ‘perfect’ criteria too!)
(Report abusive comment)
Rosa says:
TOWANDA!!!!!
And a big Hi Five!!
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
-’blush’-……..
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
EB, and you deserve it.
Remember the conversation between Sug and Ceely in, “The Color Purple”?
My curiosity is peeked. What do you need to spend 150.00 on?
(Report abusive comment)
hens says:
150.00 for a self propelled metal detector?
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
kimmie…..
This is a family forum……can’t say.
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
OHHHHHHHHHH. Ditto on the blush.
Do they cost that much these days?
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Hens….dual purpose…..NICE!!!
That’s why I go out in the dead of night metal detecting!
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
fancy shmancy.
(Report abusive comment)
hens says:
hey 150.00 is a bargain considering there is no man attached to it..better than the thousands i paid for the one that did come attached..
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
Absolutely agree, Hens, and it probably has more heart, too.
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Agreed.
(Report abusive comment)
hens says:
EB .
(Report abusive comment)
ErinBrock says:
Hens….that is so wonderful!
Yes dear…..you are loved…..and the fact you have your gbabies in your life to cha, cha, cha you is a blessing in itself!
I thought of you as I went to bed last night…..I hoped you had a nice dinner with your son and family…..the moon was so bright last night…..great night for a Birthday celebration….no candles required!
Homemade Ice cream…..WOW…YUM!!!!
You are special……keep that feeling alive darlen!!!!
(Report abusive comment)
Siblinghell says:
Steve,
I have to thank you for the interview. This is how LoveFraud Blog works so great. I am writing this comment without reading through all the responses. It is getting late and I just wanted to share this with the site.
The reason I found this topic, is that I put the word ‘emotion’ in the search feature of the site. I was looking for an explanation of why my spath brother tears up at the heart tugging ends of TV shows and movies. This does not seem like someone who has no emotions. That is pretty clearly an emotional response to the story and appropriately placed music.
I have diagnosed my brother as an spath after 52 years. So how can this be explained.
Dr. Neuman has gone most of the way to an explanation, possibly. His description very closely tracks my brothers worst spath behavior.
No two psychopath are identical. They are as varied as any huge sample of humans. They can have any number of the traits and in varying degrees.
But I am here to talk about my brother’s ‘specialness’. And some of the classic traits he does not possess.
Two traits that are always talked about are lying and promiscuity. My brother is definitely not promiscuous. He is monogamous. The lying is a little trickier. He is a master manipulator, but I don’t think he lies outright. I think he is always telling something that has some element of truth to it. but maybe it is misleading. Or is deception by ommision. Anyway, I have never caught him in a lie.
His worst behavior is that when we are in discussions about our business (especially at the decision making spots) he become inelastic and it appears (to me, as self diagnosed PPD) that he is deliberately trying to choose decisions in opposition to my opinion, even when it negatively affects the business.
I started thinking about this when Oxy told me of his similar sibling problem with his sister and that he has attained NC with her except for business. For me, that would be impossible. The business discussions are the worst spathisodes of the relationship. This is where Dr. Neuman’s reasearch and theory are helpful.
What happens in our discussions is this. For what ever reason my brother chooses the opposite of my position, he is over-focused on promoting his position (it is common to hear spaths described has needing to win). He does not get angry (I have reduced patience with him and begin to get angry early in these fruitless discussions). He just settles into the task of getting what he wants. He can argue for days on end and he rarely tires, or at least tires inperceptably compared to his opponent, me, who in every case I know of has given in. Totally frustrating for me, and a relaxing rewarding game for him.
This parallels Neuman proposition that he has emotions (tearing at emotional programs), but is able to put this aside to over focus on his current interest (i.e. opposing my opinions). Completely fricking describes it. Some other interview or presentation floated the idea that spaths have emotions, but they are able to or are wired to choose a different ‘strategy’ when they see advantage in that strategy. If that strategy is over focusing on ‘winning’ the argument, then they choose that.
I do not see that Neuman’s assessment would make it might be possible to redirect the spath to the emotional strategy as attainable. It would be nice if the technique was already developed, easily useable by those having to face the spath, and has a close to 100 percent success rate.
Many of the spaths I have read about in the books and on this site do not resemble my brother’s behavior. Particularly the one who prey on partners in romantic relationships.
Again, Thanks Steve for the link and inciting the discussion. I will have to go back and finish reading all the comments.
(Report abusive comment)
Frank Lee Speaking says:
I really wish people on this board would stop using the term “spath” and please stick with SOCIOPATH. That’s what’s they are: insane, twisted, repulsive, lowlife sociopaths. They are not “spaths”.
Using buzzwords such as spath takes the seriousness out of the issue reducing it to an almost infantile socially acceptable term. I could see it entering common language via Hollywood movies “Dude you’re such a spath!” thereby changing the energy of the term and making it cute. “oh baby I am such a spath!”
Hollywood is already a sociopath/psychopath validating industry. Please do not encourage this further. There is an energy and power in words. That’s why we “spell” words – we cast a spell in terms of the impact of the word. To stop using sociopath and replacing it with spath you are doing these parasites a favour.
It’s SOCIOPATH. Thanks.
(Report abusive comment)
bulletproof says:
A rose by any other name, still smells as sweet…and a sociopath by any other name still as evil….but I agree with you…I do it because sociopath is a long word to type, and I resent spending that time on them!! I prefer the term psychopath for my particular experience, there was nothing socio about it, and I refer to him as the P which stand for psychopath….that to me in it’s essence is ‘remorseless’
(Report abusive comment)
Siblinghell says:
I respectfully agree and disagree with you. I am not enamored with the coined term spath. In my opinion, it is too weak and fluffy of a word to describe them. I am guilty of taking it around the block to see how it handles. I agree with you on your potential Hollywood carjacking of the term for their own frivolous purposes. I recently saw an episode of the The Simpsons, where the terms psycho and psychopath are used interchangeably to describe the Bart character.
The other side of the coin is that the meaning of the terms sociopath and psychopath have gotten muddled as differing psychologists discover previously uncharacterized aspects of the phenomenon and twist and wrench the words to fit their new findings.
Because our best scientific data comes from studies in prisons where we can finally try to nail them down, separate from the rest of us because it is harder to schmooze their way out of being ‘caught’ perpetrating a ‘real’ crime. And we know they do not seek professional help, since they don’t think they have a problem. The general population associates these terms with hardened criminals and not people who use their disorder to wreak havoc outside of prison. They do not see the people we are having to deal with in that category.
As I struggled to understand what this soul destroying being was all about and finally got past the lame discussions of school bullies, it was not clear what the official definitions of psychopath and sociopath were.
Also, I am sure that you have seen all the comments about people who try to educate the general population (after their own revelations) about these individuals. Most people hear Ted Bundy or Son of Sam when you use the term psychopath which I believe the gen-pop see as interchangeable with sociopath.
Do you weigh in with ’sociopath’ because it historically can be traced directly to the concept of an individual ‘without conscience’?
There is, here, an opportunity to come up with some vernacular that will educate the general public without scaring them away. Somewhere between ’spath’ and psychopath.
We are not going to be able to stop Hollywood from doing what they do. Unless we come up with (and please excuse the term) a ‘killer’ label for these people that identified them to the world without the ‘guilty by association’ that some of the other words invoke, we are helping to hide them behind the gross misunderstanding of the current terms we use.
I think if some of us among are confused about these terms, how will the general public ever get educated? We have seen how members of this group complain that people do not understand when we start talking about these things and use those words. And in many cases may start avoiding and shunning us because we are talking to them about these murderous violent people around them at length.
But I agree, spath isn’t optimal. Not enough teeth.
Words can be used as weapons, but if they are too heavy they fall short of their intended trajectory.
(Report abusive comment)
OxDrover says:
Dear Sibling and Frank,
The new DSM V will be out (yhou can see the preposed changes online) where there will hopefully be some concensus about the “name” for this disorder and whether it is one or two or three different disorders, depending on severity etc.
Part of the problem with the “name” for the disorder is within the professional branch itself, without there being a concensus for a name even among the researchers.
“Anti-social personality disorder” to me sounds like a HERMIT! Someone who doesn’t like to be around others and is “anti-social.”
“Psychopath” has been used by the media to describe the Charlie Mansons or Ted Bundys for a long time.
“Sociopath” doesn’t seem to have ANY meaning to most people on the street if you ask them if they can figure out what it means.
Liane Leedom has come out with a great new article which came online today and I think it will shed some light on psychopathy (my chosen term mostly because I read Bob Hare early on, and that is his chosen term).
Criminals are on one end of the spectrum, but there are other, less toxic, but still hurtful levels of psychopathic traits, so read Lliane’s article and I think you will answer most of your own questions here.
(Report abusive comment)
kim frederick says:
Thanks, Frank Lee. That is definately food for thought.
I kind of liked the term “Spath” for a number of reasons. I think it’s an ugly sounding word…like spat…I spat it out….or splat, the sound it makes when it hits the sidewalk…or shit path…I think it appropriately diminishes them…makes them into something small and mildly annoying, it refuses to grant them status and power.
On the other-hand, perhaps it does trivialize the issue, and come off as a bit kitchy. You might be right about it getting in the way of educating the public. I’m not sure whether I will or won’t use it in the future. I will give it some thought.
Loved what you said about the power of language…yes it is magic. It enchants us. I had a Lit professor who used this from the old testement to explain:
The word was with God, and it was God, and the word was made flesh.
Language matters. It materializes reality.
(Report abusive comment)
Frank Lee Speaking says:
Sorry if I got a bit snippy about the term, but it is important to me. The female sociopath I was with would delight in using the term “Spath” as it would sound cutsie and would rob the term of its power. Last thing we need to cultivate the notion of ‘Your Freindly Neighbour Sociopath…’
Sociopath – viceral and straight to the point. It’s a powerful sounding word for a powerfully dystructive entity.
Kim, words in many languages do not come about by accident. They were designed to change social and psychological reality. Even languages written from right to left are very different than ones who run from left to right. None of this is by accident. It’s all about social engineering and discouraging imagination. Hence, why the Vatican put so much time and effort in forcing people to right with the right hand as due to the nature of the human nervous system – whereby the left hand is wired into the right hemisphere of the brain and this is were humans develop creative insight. The last thing a sociopath control grid wants is people who can think ‘outside the box’. Words and terms are constructed the same way. In just about every culture the story of creation begins with a spoken word.
Languages such as English and Italian are not as old as we assume. I know people on this board mostly spell “spath” to shorten the spelling, but again, it makes the condition too casual, and almost friendly. The word loses it’s power.
“Sociopath” is a fantastic term most people have heard of it and it cuts like a knife. “Spath” is like a friendly pat on the shoulder. you see why I feel so strongly about this.
(Report abusive comment)
one_step_at_a_time says:
ah frank, you did get a little snippy.
spath for me is a not only a shortening of a word, but a spitting out and an owning of the term sociopath. i am a lesbian and a feminist. i have spent a great deal of time pondering the naming of things in language and how that frames power relationships. I embraced ‘dyke’, ‘fag’ and ‘queer’ with a vengeance. We used those words hurled at us and built a culture of resistance out of them. They then became the expression of the essence of all that our culture was, with resistance only one part of the whole. THIS is how i use and view the term spath: a claiming of my experience, an owning of my right to name the damage, be angry, become empowered and heal.
Most people who come here catch on to all the terms we use. I myself am trying to use ppath now. I know i used sociopath at first because the word psychopath too heavily laden with images of serial killers and so grossly misunderstood that I felt that the people I spoke to would arbitrarily dismiss my story.
Using the term pyschopath felt like too big a responsibility, but i can deal with that now. I can call her a ppath, she really IS evil. I have become more comfortable with carrying this story and owning it.
thanks for bringing this up frank. our views are different. but we both want to claim terms that are forceful and empowering – they are just different terms.
(Report abusive comment)
dancingnancies says:
Just goes to show people, just because someone has “credentials” doesn’t mean they are to be automatically believed, or taken by their word. I don’t care how many diplomas you have on your wall, gold stars, medals, awards, brownie points, WHATEVER. If your argument is faulty then your credentials don’t mean anything. On the other hand, if your arguments are logical and make sense, then your credentials are justified and prove worthwhile.
The bigger point being, actually listen to someone instead of looking at the shinies and thinking well if they have a shiny, they MUST know what they’re saying. Doesn’t work that way.
Thanks for the illuminating dissection and an intelligent examination of this guy’s claims/work, Steve. Some people, in the aftermath of a P or S will be eager to gobble up any info they could find. It’s inordinately important to thoroughly examine an argument before accepting it. ( Case in Point : S. Vak the malignant N, although he has no real credentials to speak of. His so-called “PhD” is actually from an online diploma mill. Yet he always addresses himself by that title. Then again he is an N/P so that shouldn’t come as a surprise. )
(Report abusive comment)
Ox Drover says:
Dear Dancing nancies,
Yep, there ARE several “noted PhDs” out there that speak in WORD SALAD to sound “important and knowing” that if you look at what they say actually doesn’t say anything, but it isn’t because their thoughts are so lofty that us “common folks” cant understand them, it is that the aren’t saying anything intelligent or true.
I used to assume if I couldn’t understand something it was because I wasn’t educated enough or smart enough, but I’ve finally come to realize that is NOT always the case, the case very well may be, they aren’t saying anything that makes any sense.
Communication is a two-way street. If you aren’t being communicated to, it is possible there is nothing there understandable or worthwhile for you to understand.
(Report abusive comment)