I finally recently read this book. Just to add my 2 cents, I found Carole Alden's story quite fascinating, but that Barbara Oakley left a lot to be desired. She sounds like a mixture between an authoritarian follower and a "catty" person, for lack of a better word. Some of the comments about Carole Alden's relatives were pure interpretation on her part, I think, and quite cruel.
Why even call the book "Cold-blooded Kindness", when it isn't about that? She does explain that her initial intention was to write about how altruism in excess can hurt, but if this story is true, Carole is NOT a good example, so the book should have been titled something different, IMO.
My favorite parts were the quotes from other researchers, like Approaching Infinity pointed out.
But Carole Alden's story is really interesting. I'm not 100% sure that she is a psychopath, but if she isn't, she certainly behaved like one! The amount of suffering she seems to have inflicted is just mind-boggling. The way she had all her children on her side reminded me of the story Lobaczewski tells about a woman's brothers, who kept defending her pathological behavior and view of the world, even as she continued to abuse her own son.
I think it's worth reading. The description of how she depicted herself as an animal lover but in reality mistreated her pets and was particularly attracted to snakes, lizards, etc. was just creepy. If it is true, she also invented horrible stories about her past just to look like a victim, no matter how hurtful that was for others, and used her children in the most despicable ways to elicit pity from others. Not to mention that she seemed to look for "wounded" partners, and then destroy their lives even more. The dirt and mess in her house was something I had never seen in my life (the author has pictures showing the hell Carole's family was living in). I think Carole Alden was either a very good female psychopath, or an extremely deranged person. At least from the account. Well, it could have been made up, and there is hardly anything on the Internet about her. But even though it might not all be accurate, the description of her behaviors did ring a bell, and reminded me of some "extreme" cases described in the psychopathy literature.
Approaching Infinity said:
On the subject of animal hoarders, Oakley made this interesting observation:
Or it could be that animal hoarders had difficulty making any attachment to humans at all [as opposed to receiving inadequate support from caregivers] - the best they can do, given possibly funky neurological equipment, is to fulfill their attachment needs with a training-wheels, light version through bonding with animals.
Here's some more from the analysis of animal hoarders (which I think can apply to many people who, behind a mask of "self-sacrifice", abuse other human beings, and not only animals):
Nathanson and Patronek note that:
[h]oarders often report social histories characterized by dysfunctional human relationships from adolescence into adulthood. [A]nimal hoarders frequently note their attraction to girl/boyfriends, partners and spouses who they knew to be troubled or needy. They are unable to see the connection between their partners' apparent neediness and propensity to become highly dependent upon them and their own need to achieve relational security through their care-giving role... It is typical to observe affective instability, intense and unstable interpersonal relationships, and even dissociative symptoms in hoarders... Hoarders appear to become enmeshed in a pattern of excessive need to acquire, possess, and control. [...]
Although Rescuer-Hoarders profess unselfish motives, they themselves derive benefits from the human-animal relation. When asked 'why have you become mission-bound to rescue unwanted homeless animals?' Rescuer-Hoarders consistently express their motivation is to love and care for helpless and deserving animals. While this well-intentioned motivation or concern for animals is understandable and may hold true at times or in specific cases, it is important to [note] the identification the hoarder is most likely making with helpless animals.
[...]
Rescuer-Hoarders apparent obliviousness to their animals' deplorable conditions may be conveyed by way of defensiveness, minimizing, denial, or dissociation. This lack of empathy belies any altruistic behavior or motivations. By seeing their animals as extensions of themselves, hoarders fail to acknowledge or understand whether or how their animals might have needs that are distinct from their own. In other words, by failing to acknowledge and appropriately respond to animals as 'others', Rescuer-Hoarders become, essentially, self-serving. Therefore, it would be erroneous to conclude that the hoarder's state of self-neglect is self-sacrificing -that is, that they are unselfishly foregoing their own needs in order to provide for their animals- and their motivation and actions cannot be rightly viewed as demonstrating the altruistic criteria of an unselfish concern for others.
