can a psychopath trick another psychopath into thinking he is 'normal'?

[mada85]

Perhaps we can infer some things from behavior and events observed by victims?

One thing many victims report is the psychopath's stare. Perhaps the stare is a) a way of 'hypnotising' their prey with b) the added 'bonus' of testing to see if the other person is a psychopath. Just a thought.

 

[webglider]

I am a broken machine, reading your responses confirms it. i think that i will take a lurk of this moment and linger with my own tools. seeing my self behave this way is , as my Father said- disgusting.

You have shown me the way but i am in struggles with words and actions, towards this first step on the staircase.


Many Apologies to all who have wasted there time replying to my noise. my emotional writing is not in lines with the objective rules of the forum.

Emotions are subjective, yes i know, and expressing it can even be worse.

Two steps forward and one step back do not apply in life, i take three steps forward and slide down a staircase- each and every time.

Apologies, too all involved emotions are not in order, nor did i intend to disrespect the forum or its members.
Steven

Hey Steven:

Self-flagellation is just a ploy to evoke pity. I, personally, am not falling for it. Pull yourself together, and stop it.

 

[purplehaze]

We have seen what we 'believe' to be this happen one time with one of our predators and his last 'known' prey (the latter was a con woman)

 

[theos]

Hmm,

My immediate thought when first seeing this question was no. A psychopath cannot trick another psychopath into thinking he is normal because they are able to recognize each other. Then I thought, why would a psychopath need to do this? We know that psychopaths have to dominate others in order to ensure their own survival but maybe the only "tricks" they can play on one another -- since they know one another is to fool the other into thinking that they are a less clever psychopath, thereby putting the other psychopath off his guard long enough to be taken advantage of. In other words, may the better psychopath win using whatever tricks they can.

OSIT

 

[Nienna]

We have seen what we 'believe' to be this happen one time with one of our predators and his last 'known' prey (the latter was a con woman)

Was this interaction only online, or did they meet face to face?

 

[purplehaze]

Was this interaction only online, or did they meet face to face?

Met via online dating
progressed to FACE TO FACE
They were engaged to be married and living together for 5 months when the con woman's sister found out he was a bigamist and a wanted felon.

 

[Hildegarda]

i know they can easily recognize each other from childhood on, but would the mask of sanity hide him from one of his co-psychos if he wanted to?

I don't think it is impossible. It does say they CAN, but that doesn't imply that they always do with 100% accuracy. But, the question has to be re-framed a bit.

IMO a psychopath is not carefully considering everyone he\she meets and try to understand if they are the same as he\she. For one thing, a psychopath doesn't care for people that much. And for another, he\she doesn't care about the more fundamental knowledge of human nature, i.e., doesn't strive to understand others so as to learn more about life.

Instead, people are there for him\her as a resource to use and abuse. This is how they are judged, if they are good for this kind of thing or not, and it's probably sometimes based on immediate feel, sometimes on more prolonged observation of the other person.

So it is still conceivable that a psychopath would decide that the other psychopath is a good object for conning or using in some way. And may be they could feel that it's "someone like me", but still try to win over that person. It's not like they go, "oh, hi fellow wolf among the sheep, let's keep hunting on our own territories," there are no such rules in their games.

Or may be they wouldn't bother looking for clues because the other person fits their victim profile, and they are confident in their abilities.

The con woman and a con man situation that purplehaze has brought up fits this scenario, and I have heard of others almost exactly like that, too. It's even in the literature (there is a Karel Chapek's story about a serial bigamist being hoodwinked by a con lady, and getting very righteously upset about it :)

 

[Annette1]

I've had the opportunity to observe two psychopaths who were friends. Or, I highly suspect them to both be psychopaths and I use the term friends loosely, as it appeared to me they were more friends of convenience and neither displayed any sort of close attachment to the other from my observation. At the time, I chalked it up to gender difference and my paltry understanding of male friendships. That said, their friendship always seemed a little odd to me, plus the fact that I did not realize at the time that both were/are psychopaths.

I witnessed only one side of the friendship for the most part. However it seemed to me that the side I witnessed had the upper hand so to speak. It appeared to me that this one was able to persuade the other to do his dirty work for him. I also detected some reluctance on the part of the weaker side, but he went along with it. If there was some sort of reciprocity going on, I was not aware.

I suspect that if they are capable of recognizing one another and that they do join forces at times, they will use one another to achieve whatever goal(s) they seek. Not so much a con or trick of the other. The stronger or smarter will prevail. I suspect that there is some kind of reciprocity between them, but again the stronger/smarter will give less. I also suspect that at some point they outgrow their usefulness to one another and detach and move on.

My 2 cents FWIW

 

[Nienna]

Thank you for your answer purplehaze.

So it is still conceivable that a psychopath would decide that the other psychopath is a good object for conning or using in some way. And may be they could feel that it's "someone like me", but still try to win over that person. It's not like they go, "oh, hi fellow wolf among the sheep, let's keep hunting on our own territories," there are no such rules in their games.

I think that the fact that psychopaths don't really have a fear of consequences and that they are fairly arrogant, that maybe they think that even though the other is also pathological, they will "win out" and are then furious when it works the other way.

As Annette1 said, one will use another and then move on when they are done with the other.

fwiw

 

[Laura]

I think that we might want to consider also the different types of "psychopaths." Very often, we tend to use the term "psychopath" to describe different pathologies, some of which may not be true psychopathy and others may be ranged along the spectrum of psychopathy.

Lobaczewski describes interactions in criminal gangs where one or another member is the "scapegoat" and the kind of pathology that is generally behind this dynamic.

In one of our articles on psychopathy, there is the following:

In the book Violent Attachments, women and men have noted the particular stare of the psychopath - it is an intense, relentless gaze that seems to preclude his destruction of his victim or target. Women, in particular, have reported this stare, which is related to the "predatorial" (reptilian) gaze; it is as if the psychopath is directing all of his intensity toward you through his eyes, a sensation that one woman reported as a feeling of "being eaten." They tend to invade peoples' space either by their sudden intrusions or intimidating look-overs (which some women confuse for sexuality.)

Another extremely interesting study had to do with the way psychopaths move their hands when they speak. Hand movement can tell researchers a lot about what are called "thought units." The studies indicate that psychopaths' thoughts and ideas are organized into small mental packages. This is handy for lying, but makes dealing with an overall, coherent, integrated complex of deep thoughts virtually impossible.

Most people are able to combine ideas that have consistent thought themes, but psychopaths have great difficulty doing this. Again, this suggests a genetic restriction to what we have called the Juvenile Dictionary. Not only are they using extremely restricted definitions, they cannot, by virtue of the way their brains work, do otherwise. Virtually all of the research on psychopaths reveals an inner world that is banal, sophomoric, and devoid of the color and detail that generally exists in the inner world of normal people. This goes a long way to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions in their speech.

The situation is analogous to a movie in which one scene is shot under cloudy conditions and the next scene - which supposedly takes place a few minutes later - is shot in brilliant sunshine. […] Some moviegoers - the victims of psychopaths - might not notice the discrepancy, particularly if they are engrossed in the action.

Psychopaths are notorious for not answering the questions asked them. They will answer something else, or in such a way that the direct question is never addressed. They also phrase things so that some parts of their narratives are difficult to understand. This is not careless speech, of which everyone is guilty at times, but an ongoing indication of the underlying condition in which the organization of mental activity suggests something is wrong. It's not what they say, but how they say it that gives insight into their true nature.

But this raises, again, the question: if their speech is so odd, how come smart people get taken in by them? Why do we fail to pick up the inconsistencies?

Part of the answer is that the oddities are subtle so that our general listening mode will not normally pick them up. But my own experience is that some of the "skipped" or oddly arranged words, or misused words are automatically reinterpreted by OUR brains in the same way we automatically "fill in the blank" space on a neon sign when one of the letters has gone out. We can be driving down the road at night, and ahead we see M_tel, and we mentally put the "o" in place and read "Motel." Something like this happens between the psychopath and the victim. We fill in the "missing humanness" by filling in the blanks with our own assumptions, based on what WE think and feel and mean. And, in this way, because there are these "blank" spots, we fill them in with what is inside us, and thus we are easily convinced that the psychopath is a great guy - because he is just like us! We have been conditioned to operate on trust, and we always try to give the "benefit of the doubt." So, there are blanks, we "give the benefit of the doubt," and we are thereby hoisted on our own petard.

Psychopaths view any social exchange as a "feeding opportunity," a contest or a test of wills in which there can be only one winner. Their motives are to manipulate and take, ruthlessly and without remorse. [Hare]

One psychopath interviewed by Hare's team said quite frankly: "The first thing I do is I size you up. I look for an angle, an edge, figure out what you need and give it to you. Then it's pay-back time, with interest. I tighten the screws." Another psychopath admitted that he never targeted attractive women - he was only interested in those who were insecure and lonely. He claimed he could smell a needy person "the way a pig smells truffles."

 

[Annette1]

I think that we might want to consider also the different types of "psychopaths." Very often, we tend to use the term "psychopath" to describe different pathologies, some of which may not be true psychopathy and others may be ranged along the spectrum of psychopathy.

Lobaczewski describes interactions in criminal gangs where one or another member is the "scapegoat" and the kind of pathology that is generally behind this dynamic.

I agree. Speculatively, if there are two psychopaths, one may be smarter than the other and would have the potential to "win out" so to speak. If they are capable of recognizing one another then possibly they collaborate on certain goals, perhaps in some type of con or scam of an unsuspecting person(s) or on a reciprocity basis; you help me accomplish this and I'll assist you in your goal. When one or the other serves no purpose, they may just simply go their own separate ways or one may out maneuver the other.

If criminal psychopaths are the lower end of the spectrum, I suspect they are not as clever and do not possess the "self-control" necessary and therefore a higher failure rate as they are less able to carry off the collaboration necessary to reach the goal. The more clever/intelligent end of the spectrum have more self control and their schemes are more elaborate and sophisticated.

But, I think we see the same criminal behavior of scapegoating going on among the the higher end of the spectrum as well. Observe the political arena. When the heat is on, someone gets hung out to dry.

The persons mentioned in my previous post I believe are psychopaths of the "garden variety" type, easily written off as "the guy next door".

In the book Violent Attachments, ...

Another extremely interesting study had to do with the way psychopaths move their hands when they speak. Hand movement can tell researchers a lot about what are called "thought units." The studies indicate that psychopaths' thoughts and ideas are organized into small mental packages. This is handy for lying, but makes dealing with an overall, coherent, integrated complex of deep thoughts virtually impossible.

This I found interesting when I first read it and it also prompted a recall of a certain hand movement the same above mentioned psychopath made when speaking. Long after the fact, I realized it was a dead giveaway that whatever he was saying at the time was a lie. That hand movement was a flutter movement and, generally, he would trail off or move on to another subject. This recollection made me wish I had a videotape of every conversation I ever had with the guy.

...They also phrase things so that some parts of their narratives are difficult to understand. This is not careless speech, of which everyone is guilty at times, but an ongoing indication of the underlying condition in which the organization of mental activity suggests something is wrong. It's not what they say, but how they say it that gives insight into their true nature. ...

This I've had direct experience with and agree with it. I believe I was interacting with a garden variety type of psychopath (the guy next door type). I recall being engaged in some trivial conversation with him and he chose some well known proverb to make a point. (I cannot recall the exact saying or exactly how he rephrased it.) I vividly recall how theatrical he became when making this point and, more importantly, the proverb he chose I was familiar with, but he rephrased it. What struck me was the awkwardness of the rephrasing. At that moment in time, we were traveling up a flight of stairs and had just reached a landing and he turned and looked at me. I just nodded that I understood his point and then he smiled rather smugly, as if he were quite proud at having made his point with his phraseology. I was sort of surprised as I was thinking to myself it was an awkward way of saying what he said, but he seemed to think he was being so profound.

However, lack of knowledge about psychopaths at the time, I did exactly as described. I filled in the blanks. (an after the fact lesson #90,751..... lol).

Regarding the same two psychopaths I mentioned in observing their interaction, I was comparing notes with a friend of mine who had had some interaction with them both together and separately. One thing we noted was that they sometimes seemed to speak in code. By this I mean if others were present and they felt obliged to relay something to one another that they (the psychopaths) somehow deemed important, they seemed to choose to speak of some past experience they shared, something mundane, but something no one else present would have known of. Both my friend and I found this odd and both of us, when comparing notes, had the impression they were relaying some sort of message to one another.

 

[yet another dave]

If I understand correctly, some (possibly many) psychopaths don't really understand how they differ from normal people. They may see themselves as strong-willed and logical rather than amoral. They often seem to view morality as a kind of brainwashing that society performs on people, and believe that we follow the rules out of fear of punishment and weak-willed obedience, and that their difference lies in their refusal to go along with this - nietzschean supermen, beyond good and evil.

So, if the psychopath in question doesn't see things in terms of the 2 categories of "psychopath" and "normal", then it might not be so great at spotting others - maybe it thinks "here is another strong-willed person like me" when it sees one being really obvious, but might not know to look for the complete set of differences. So it'll spot some, but not all - ones that have a better mask will be less noticeable, even to other psychopaths. In this respect, knowledge is power - just like us, psychopaths can't detect something if they don't know that it exists. Of course, they start with the advantage of knowing that they're different, but may not realize exactly how they differ.

Judging from various forum posts I've read in various places, and conversations I've had with them, many psychopaths think that we're just like them, except "weaker" - their attitude is "you're all like me really, but you pretend that you're not. You criticize my actions, but you would do the same if you could get away with it, if you were as skilled as I am. Your outrage is fake, designed to make you look good, and I am not so gullible as to be fooled by it."

Of course, many of them will understand that they're a breed apart, but I suspect that a surprising number of them don't.

And like a previous poster said, maybe they notice but don't really care. Perhaps they just notice that some of the tricks they use on other people don't work on this person, but think no more of it.

 

[Tigersoap]

Judging from various forum posts I've read in various places, and conversations I've had with them, many psychopaths think that we're just like them, except "weaker" - their attitude is "you're all like me really, but you pretend that you're not. You criticize my actions, but you would do the same if you could get away with it, if you were as skilled as I am. Your outrage is fake, designed to make you look good, and I am not so gullible as to be fooled by it."

Hi yetanotherdave,

Would you care to explain how and why you met theses "psychopaths" and how come they have been so open about what they are with you ?

I am quite suprised that you would be able to flag them as psychopaths as many of them would be indetectable unless carefully examined ?

I suppose that the ones who are bragging about it are the less "gifted" of the pack :D

 

[Buddy]

Hi yet another dave;

The following quote seems relevant here (emphasis mine):

[quote author=http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm]
[...]
They can also be Narcissists since Narcissism seems to be merely a "facet" of the psychopath or a "milder" manifestation. You could say that the Narcissist is a "garden variety psychopath" who, because of his or her "social programming," has less likelihood of running afoul of the law. In this way, they are very efficient "survival machines," living out their lives doing untold damage to their families, friends and business associates.

It is only when a person takes a long and careful look at the full-blown psychopath - a sort of exaggerated Narcissist - that they are able to see the caricature of the traits that then make it easier for them to identify the "garden variety" psychopath - and/or the Narcissist.
[/quote]

It seems quite natural to ask about your knowledge and/or experiences with 'psychopaths' as it seems much more common for us to suffer "untold damage" from Narcissists as well as recognize the narcissism in others when we learn about our own.
Have you read any of the related books on the Recommended Reading List? Any one of these can help deepen your understanding, I think.

If you have had interactions with genuine psychopaths, your experiences could be added to the knowledge base and possibly be beneficial to everyone as is somewhat suggested in the quote below:

[quote author=http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm]
Our research team and egroup have been engaged for some time in researching and analyzing these interactions and the characteristics and the dynamics and the personalities. Our research has led us to identify them with "Psychopaths." They can also be Narcissists since Narcissism seems to be merely a "facet" of the psychopath or a "milder" manifestation. You could say that the Narcissist is a "garden variety psychopath" who, because of his or her "social programming," has less likelihood of running afoul of the law. In this way, they are very efficient "survival machines," living out their lives doing untold damage to their families, friends and business associates.
[/quote]

...or so I think. :)

 

[yet another dave]

It seems quite natural to ask about your knowledge and/or experiences with 'psychopaths' as it seems much more common for us to suffer "untold damage" from Narcissists

I see narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths etc as different names for the same thing, and I call them all "psychopaths". Sorry if this has caused confusion. In those terms, then, the people I have interacted with are mostly just narcissists, and I've only met a couple of "full-blown" psychopaths.