Initial blindness towards a pathological individual

[mada85]

A few days ago, in the course of my work, I encountered an individual who I later discovered to have a long record of violence, aggression, sexual assault against both women and men, theft and antisocial behaviour - a record which dates back over 40 years. This individual continues to behave in this manner. I spent about 15 - 20 minutes with this individual, and the only thing I noticed at the time was that this person seemed somehow reserved and rather quiet. This was certainly not enough to make me suspect that I was dealing with a sociopathic and potentially violent individual. The individual did not say much, hardly anything in fact. The individual appeared completely normal – the individual displayed none of the conventional external indicators of a ‘hard man’. I did not feel threatened in any way; the hairs on my neck did not rise, my stomach remained calm (no gut-feeling) - in short, at the time I did not have any instinctive reaction or warning. It was only later that certain information came to light and caused me to completely revise my assessment of the individual concerned.

Having been reading SoTT etc for some time, I always wonder, on meeting someone, about their psychological world - it's almost a 'splinter in my mind'. My recent encounter has shown me that there may really be very little indeed to go on at a first meeting that could alert one to an individual's predatory or violent nature.

In retrospect, the only thing that might possibly have alerted me was the individual's quietness. Was this a 'flattening of affect'? Answering retrospectively, perhaps it was. But at the time I gave the individual the benefit of the doubt. And that leads me to another observation - I was 'making nice'. As a reaction to this individual's silence I talked more, and this is a program that runs in me fairly often. But at the time, based on the information I was provided with, I thought this individual's quietness was understandable.

I now consider that this individual intentionally used silence as a mask or shield behind which the individual was assessing me and the situation, and calculating the best strategy to use. Given the reason for my meeting with this individual, this seems valid to me.

 

[Smallwood]

You are probably right in thinking that he was assessing situation. Personally, every psycho that I've known has been a loud and a social person. I think a silent psychopath might be a very hard one to spot. I think it boils down to whether they are the "succesful type" or a "failure type". Perhaps he knew you worked at a position which required some knowledge of this kind?

I was reminded by your post of one apparent socio/psychopathic individual who I see almost everyday and when I first met him. Interestingly, I could see what he was from the moment that I looked at him. I think when a psychopath is new to a group they trust that people in it who meet everyone for the first time won't make "harsh" judgements about those they meet and thus don't fret over every aspect of their appearance in favor of saving their energy perhaps. Something in his eyes and posture gave him away. I didn't at first believe that I could be right about someone being a psycho on a first glance, but later some stuff happened that proved to me beyond doubt that my first impression of him was correct. That said, it was almost too easy to spot him since he turned out to be a "failed psychopath" material.

Based on all examples that I've come across, failed/dumb psychopaths are very easy to figure out. That certain "tough guy" feeling is always present with them. The first time you come across one they might fool you enough to trust them in some matters. However, since they all seem very similar in that respect, you can learn to spot them. Almost hilariously they all seem to employ that "I never turn against my family/comrades/gang" style rhetoric as if they were capable of meaning it. For a good example, watch a Charles Manson interview, if you can stomach him. Any one of them will do. If you ignore a bit extraordinary history of his, he acts like any failed psychopath you may meet in some circumstance, albeit when he does it it is of course more pronounced.

That said, if you spot one, for god's sake don't let him know you know in any way. They will do anything they can to ruin you.

I haven't personally come across anyone who was a succesful psychopath, maybe because I haven't been employed anywhere for very long. I'd be interested to see however if I could "spot" one. Maybe I couldn't, atleast right away, because I was traumatized by unsuccesful ones and only know how to avoid them.

 

[purplehaze]

It's frightening how many people STILL think they can TELL when someone is pathological or "spot them."

The cold hard truth is - YOU CAN'T. They are masters of disguise and interpersonal hypnosis. The initial blindness is NORMAL because the majority of subcriminal pathologicals fly right under our radar.

It doesn't matter how smart, savvy, empathetic, intuitive, or whatever you are. Everyone's at risk. Period.

GREAT READ FOR ALL: Women Who Love Psychopaths by Sandra Brown, MA

 

[Laura]

Hervey Cleckley wrote that his staff could always tell who was gonna end up with the diagnosis of "psychopath" if that person was able to persuade Cleckley to lend him money. He freely admitted that, even as an expert with YEARS of experience, he was regularly bamboozled. They are THAT good! (The ones that get sussed fast are failures of the taxon.)

Around here, if I am noted to "feel sorry" for somebody and feel like I want to do something for them just "out of the blue," without them asking... it's a sure sign...

It's a LOT easier for me to spot them in an interaction with someone else, when I am not the target. Maybe that is true for others? Maybe that's why a network is so crucial?

 

[PepperFritz]

It's a LOT easier for me to spot them in an interaction with someone else, when I am not the target. Maybe that is true for others? Maybe that's why a network is so crucial?

Indeed. And why psychopaths are always trying to "isolate" their victims, one way or another. If they are not able to keep them literally isolated (e.g. keeping a wife or girlfriend house-bound, not allowed to see friends/family), then they create "divide and conquer" scenarios to keep people distrustful of one another and non-communicating (e.g. within office/corporate/organizational environments).

 

[Gimpy]

Hervey Cleckley wrote that his staff could always tell who was gonna end up with the diagnosis of "psychopath" if that person was able to persuade Cleckley to lend him money. He freely admitted that, even as an expert with YEARS of experience, he was regularly bamboozled. They are THAT good! (The ones that get sussed fast are failures of the taxon.)

Around here, if I am noted to "feel sorry" for somebody and feel like I want to do something for them just "out of the blue," without them asking... it's a sure sign...

It's a LOT easier for me to spot them in an interaction with someone else, when I am not the target. Maybe that is true for others? Maybe that's why a network is so crucial?

I used to feel sorry for them, but not anymore.

My red flag is a sense of comfortableness, familiarity, that is totally out of place with the situation. Behavior that should be a sign with such a person doesn't sink into awareness, its as if my mind shuts off parts of itself like a chicken with its head tucked under a wing. In each case the environment I was in was dangerous, and it took someone outside the situation to point this out to me, to get me away from it. If its a man and I'm attracted to him for no reason, that is a sure sign to run in the other direction, too.

When I'm not the target, yes, sometimes they do something stupid and can be spotted. I think that has to do with predatory attention, they get so focused on the target everything else doesn't exist.

Networking is definitely crucial, osit.

 

[Smallwood]

I was talking about the lawbreaking types, not whitecollar ones. As I said, I haven't had any contact with succesful ones so I can't say anything on that one way or another. Though, I would hazard a guess that succesful types can just produce more effective mask of sanity in everyday situations. Maybe succesful psychopaths are made when they already have a willing and providing food source at home (or someplace else) and they can go to job energized? Just an idea.

I only find it interesting that with all those who to me give a bad first impression it seldom takes two weeks until I hear them say the same degrading stuff about their supposed lifepartners, see them get into trouble even with the most simplest and agreed on rules and just moving on to a position to scam somebody out of little money. On the other hand, those who give me a good first impression rarely turn out to be trouble to anyone. It is of course only some intuition that I've come to trust. So far it has worked for me, if only for the grace that the situation often hasn't allowed them wreak any serious havok.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I was talking about the lawbreaking types, not whitecollar ones. As I said, I haven't had any contact with succesful ones so I can't say anything on that one way or another.
Though, I would hazard a guess that succesful types can just produce more effective mask of sanity in everyday situations.

Yup, so I'm not sure how you can say with any certainty that you haven't had any contact with them considering part of the definition of "successful" means fooling everyone into seeing them not as they are.

I only find it interesting that with all those who to me give a bad first impression it seldom takes two weeks until I hear them say the same degrading stuff about their supposed lifepartners, see them get into trouble even with the most simplest and agreed on rules and just moving on to a position to scam somebody out of little money.

I dunno, I think when you're talking about "successful" psychopaths, it could easily be someone following rules and not scamming people out of money or trash talking their significant others when they're not there (or even when they are). It really depends, psychopaths have a shared "lack of empathy" property but their insidiousness and ability to manipulate people and situation ranges from rather shallow (although even those can be difficult to see but that's more our weakness because of critical correction and projection rather their strength in this case), to very intricate, clever, and powerful.

You may find that the "significant other" of the psychopath is simply manipulated into "adoring" the psychopath and wishing to always help them, to do things for them, and to struggle to keep them happy because they feel it their responsibility to keep the psychopath happy and meeting their needs/demands/expectations. Sure some psychopaths can use anger, self-pity, etc to control. But another may have nothing but kind words for their partner, and use the constant barrage of compliments and praises as a method of control and manipulation. Cuz you gotta remember the rule of 3 - there is good, there is bad, and there is the specific situation that decides which is which. Words of kindness can be just as deadly and an effective means of manipulation as derision, it just depends on how, when, and why both is used. For example, Gurdjieff could "deride" someone in such a way as to blast their false personality or present them a mirror and actually help them (after assessing that they can be helped by such a thing - external consideration). And words of kindness can genuinely encourage and raise morale and self esteem and strengthen someone, when used at the right time, in the right way, and for the right reason. But the devil is always in the details, I'd be careful as you may be confusing forms with substance - something that may not be seen on the surface at all.

On the other hand, those who give me a good first impression rarely turn out to be trouble to anyone. It is of course only some intuition that I've come to trust. So far it has worked for me, if only for the grace that the situation often hasn't allowed them wreak any serious havok.

Or at least as far as you know. Some havok is very quiet and you wouldn't even know it is going on. What looks like a happy relationship can be the exact opposite of external appearances. Things are often completely not as they seem. Personally I do not trust my intuition, I observe it and take note of it, but I trust prolonged critical observation and analysis of all data much more than just a "feeling", because feelings can really come from anywhere, and it is often easy to confuse an illusion that is based on a program, subjectivity, and wishful thinking with genuine intuition. Personally many times I found my initial impression to be completely 100% completely wrong as I found out later. But that's ok as that gives me an opportunity to think about why I had that impression - was it an internal program, an external manipulation/influence, or some other mental subjectivity/distortion? And if I can figure out what it was (that's the fun part!) I can try to watch out for it next time, since I already know that this is not "intuition". But putting this into practice and actually seeing it "fire up" next time can be a tricky thing too, and it may take a number of times before you really get the "flavor" of that particular subjectivity and are able to not be influenced by it. But hey, as the C's say, nothing worth doing is easy! But learning is fun!

As someone once said (ok, trice said), practice! practice! practice!! It wouldn't be called the Work if it wasn't work!

 

[purplehaze]

Sure you've "met" loads of successful psychopaths:

IOHO:
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Rod Blagojevich
Bernie Madoff
(to name a few...)

Interesting reading: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/01/successful_psychopat.html

 

[mamadrama]

Around here, if I am noted to "feel sorry" for somebody and feel like I want to do something for them just "out of the blue," without them asking... it's a sure sign...

Yes, this is a red flag for me as well. As Martha Stout says in her book, The Sociopath Next Door, sympathy is the biggest hook used:

The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy." p. 107

And in many of the encounters I've had, they play the sympathy card without actually asking directly for help. They are fishing to see if you will rush in to provide support for them in some manner.

 

[piranah]

A few days ago, in the course of my work, I encountered an individual who I later discovered to have a long record of violence, aggression, sexual assault against both women and men, theft and antisocial behaviour - a record which dates back over 40 years. This individual continues to behave in this manner. I spent about 15 - 20 minutes with this individual, and the only thing I noticed at the time was that this person seemed somehow reserved and rather quiet. This was certainly not enough to make me suspect that I was dealing with a sociopathic and potentially violent individual. The individual did not say much, hardly anything in fact. The individual appeared completely normal – the individual displayed none of the conventional external indicators of a ‘hard man’. I did not feel threatened in any way; the hairs on my neck did not rise, my stomach remained calm (no gut-feeling) - in short, at the time I did not have any instinctive reaction or warning. It was only later that certain information came to light and caused me to completely revise my assessment of the individual concerned.

Having been reading SoTT etc for some time, I always wonder, on meeting someone, about their psychological world - it's almost a 'splinter in my mind'. My recent encounter has shown me that there may really be very little indeed to go on at a first meeting that could alert one to an individual's predatory or violent nature.

In retrospect, the only thing that might possibly have alerted me was the individual's quietness. Was this a 'flattening of affect'? Answering retrospectively, perhaps it was. But at the time I gave the individual the benefit of the doubt. And that leads me to another observation - I was 'making nice'. As a reaction to this individual's silence I talked more, and this is a program that runs in me fairly often. But at the time, based on the information I was provided with, I thought this individual's quietness was understandable.

I now consider that this individual intentionally used silence as a mask or shield behind which the individual was assessing me and the situation, and calculating the best strategy to use. Given the reason for my meeting with this individual, this seems valid to me.

you have put your finger on something I realised about a situation I escaped from. I was finding everything going wrong in my social life and realised that certain quiet individuals who i did not suspect of any malice had been feigning friendship and being quiet so I talked more and they took certain information and manipulated it to cause trouble for me both with my son and my social involvement. It linked back to a family member who decided to play passive aggressive so she could extract revenge. Never to my face did these individuals show anything but quite sickly niceness and it was only by analysing the whole thing from afar that I worked it out. By acting friendly and supportive in a casual quiet manner much more psychological power can be used on the victim. Especially if you want the victim to seem mad. The closer a abuser or bully is the harder it is to see them initially. Certain of us are more open and trusting which is something I have learned since to guard against. I imagine the manipulation that goes on in the corridors of power and axsis of evil. Mine only involved a pta and family members but it was enough to push me to the edge. Be careful who you accept into your life is my warning not everyone who is out to hurt you will approach with flashing lights and blaring horns. The most dangerous come quietly smiling.

 

[Smallwood]

Thank you SAO, I will take time to think about your post. I won't be replying to this thread at this time, maybe later when I have more to contribute.