Psychopaths closing ranks?

Azur

The Living Force
I found this article absolutely chilling.

http://ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2006/11/18/2404221-sun.html

November 18, 2006
Rehab sought for psychopath
Lawyer seeks treatment for convicted killer
By SEAN MCKIBBON, COURTS BUREAU

Being a psychopath isn't illegal -- in fact, some psychopaths are very successful members of society, an Ottawa lawyer argued at a dangerous offender hearing yesterday.

A former Ace Crew gang member -- who as a teen was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Sylvain Leduc -- is facing a dangerous offender application following further convictions for forcible confinement, extortion and assault causing bodily harm among other raps. He has been branded a psychopath and untreatable by the Crown.

"It's a noble endeavour to treat psychopaths, but it's not expected to be successful," said Crown prosecutor Jason Neubauer, citing testimony by forensic psychiatrist Stephen Hucker that likened the personality type to an untreatable cancer.

But defence lawyer Lorne Goldstein argued that while the psychopath label isn't treatable, antisocial behaviour is.

EXTERNAL MOTIVATION

"There is some evidence to suggest that some judges, lawyers and CEOs do rank high on the psychopathy score," said Goldstein. "Psychopaths can't be treated -- that is the prevailing thinking -- but I have not seen a single case that says they can't be rehabilitated."

Knocking on the plexiglass of the prisoner's dock, Goldstein said that while Hucker testified that his client didn't have internal motivation to change his ways, his client had plenty of external motivation.

If declared a dangerous offender, Goldstein's client would be incarcerated indefinitely. Goldstein is arguing his client could be jailed a further three years, given treatment and be subject to a 10-year long-term supervision order.

While Hucker was pessimistic about the prospect of treatment, Goldstein called evidence from another psychiatrist, Dr. Julian Gojer, who said there was a good likelihood that the man could be rehabilitated.

The case returns to court Dec. 15.
 
DonaldJHunt said:
Wow. Isn't it comforting to know that a lot of judges are psychopaths. ;)
Scary is what it is. I would have liked to have been there when the lawyer said this to see the reaction of those in the room. It would probably be the first time they'd heard this.
 
This is spooky:
"There is some evidence to suggest that some judges, lawyers and CEOs do rank high on the psychopathy score," said Goldstein. "Psychopaths can't be treated -- that is the prevailing thinking -- but I have not seen a single case that says they can't be rehabilitated."
That is to say that being a judge, lawyer or CEO is evidence that a psychopath is okay????

Okay, so now we know that they are going to start coming right out and admitting to being psychopaths and promoting the idea that it is okay, or even better to be one. You know, the "genetic superman."

That is, I believe, the idea of Christopher Hyatt who wrote "The Psychopath's Bible."

We're in for a rough ride.
 
"There is some evidence to suggest that some judges, lawyers and CEOs do rank high on the psychopathy score," said Goldstein. "Psychopaths can't be treated -- that is the prevailing thinking -- but I have not seen a single case that says they can't be rehabilitated."
I can just hear it now. "Look, if we have judges, lawyers and CEOs that are psychopaths, it can't be all bad, can it? See, they look out for all of you folks and make sure the streets are safe. How bad can Psychopaths really be?"

I feel sick.
 
Lynne said:
"There is some evidence to suggest that some judges, lawyers and CEOs do rank high on the psychopathy score," said Goldstein. "Psychopaths can't be treated -- that is the prevailing thinking -- but I have not seen a single case that says they can't be rehabilitated."
I can just hear it now. "Look, if we have judges, lawyers and CEOs that are psychopaths, it can't be all bad, can it? See, they look out for all of you folks and make sure the streets are safe. How bad can Psychopaths really be?"

I feel sick.
Not long ago I started to read excerpts from a book "Malignant self love" by Sam Vaknin. This book is about narcissists and written BY narcissist. Apparently Vaknin feels comfortable enough to expose his "nature" and to offer some explanation about the phenomena or tips how to deal with people like him. I am still at the beginning but I already feel somehow uncomfortable. Maybe it's only my impression, but he is trying to create an image of tormented soul / tormented predator that lives in self created hell without an ability to get out (invoke pity?). What is most interesting that after reviewing his resume, it's very easy to notice that his "condition" not only helped him to climb up the ladder of financial career, but maybe was the main reason of his success. It's like he is trying to say: "I am your and my own living hell, but let's admit, you can't really be without me. There are things in this world that only those like me can perform them. You need me and I need you.".

But this is what they want us to believe in, right? And this is what actually might happen...Already there is a consensus among people that only specific people can be "conscious back stabbers" but we still need them. This is the ORDER of things in this world. People accept the fact that psychopaths have a rightful place among others.
But do they? And let's assume normal people will wake up eventually and will take control from the psychopaths. What will be then? What normal people will DO with those psychopaths? How do you prevent from predators to be in power without becoming one of them?

Here a quote from introduction to Vaknin's book. Somehow it's looks like a perfect description of psychopath.

Hello. Recognise me? No? Well, you see me all the time. You read
my books, watch me on the big screen, feast on my art, cheer at my
games, use my inventions, vote me into office, follow me into battle,
take notes at my lectures, laugh at my jokes, marvel at my
successes, admire my appearance, listen to my stories, discuss my
politics, enjoy my music, excuse my faults, envy me my blessings.
No? Still doesn't ring a bell? Well, you have seen me. Of that I am
positive. In fact, if there is one thing I am absolutely sure of, it is
that. You have seen me.

Perhaps our paths crossed more privately. Perhaps I am the one
who came along and built you up when you were down, employed
you when you were out of a job, showed the way when you were
lost, offered confidence when you were doubting, made you laugh
when you were blue, sparked your interest when you were bored,
listened to you and understood, saw you for what you really are, felt
your pain and found the answers, made you want to be alive. Of
course you recognise me. I am your inspiration, your role model,
your saviour, your leader, your best friend, the one you aspire to
emulate, the one whose favour makes you glow.
But I can also be your worst nightmare. First I build you up
because that's what you need. Your skies are blue. Then, out of the
blue, I start tearing you down. You let me do it because that's what
you are used to and you are dumfounded. I was wrong to take pity
on you. You really are incompetent, disrespectful, untrustworthy,
immoral, ignorant, inept, egotistical, constrained, disgusting. You
are a social embarrassment, an unappreciative partner, an
inadequate parent, a disappointment, a sexual flop, a financial
liability. I tell you this to your face. I must. It is my right, because it
is. I behave, at home and away, any way I want to, with total
disregard for conventions, mores, or the feelings of others. It is my
right, because it is.

I lie to your face, without a twitch or a twitter, and there is
absolutely nothing you can do about it. In fact, my lies are not lies at
all. They are the truth, my truth. And you believe them, because you
do, because they do not sound or feel like lies, because to do
otherwise would make you question your own sanity, which you
have a tendency to do anyway, because from the very beginning of
our relationship you placed your trust and hopes in me, derived
your energy from me, gave me power over you.

Run to our friends. Go. See what that will get you. Ridicule. I am
to them what I originally was to you. They believe what they see
and that's what they see, and they also see the very mixed up
person that you obviously have become. The more you plead for
understanding, the more convinced they will be that you are crazy,
the more isolated you will feel, and the harder you will try to make
things right again, by accepting my criticisms and by striving to
improve yourself. Could it be that you were wrong about me in the
beginning? So wrong as that? Not an easy pill to swallow, is it?
How do you think our friends will react if you try to cram it down
their throats? After all, it really is you who have thwarted my
progress, tainted my reputation, thrown me off course. There is an
escape from the frustrations you cause me and, fortunately, my
reputation provides enough insulation from the outside world so I
can indulge in this escape with impunity. What escape? Those
eruptions of anger you dread and fear, my rages. Ah, it feels so
good to rage. It is the expression of and the confirmation of my
power over you. Lying feels good too, for the same reason, but
nothing compares to the pleasure of exploding for no material
reason and venting my anger like a lunatic, all the time a spectator
at my own show and seeing your helplessness, pain, fear,
frustration, and dependence. Go ahead. Tell our friends about it.
See if they can imagine it, let alone believe it. The more outrageous
your account of what happened, the more convinced they will be
that the crazy one is you. And don't expect much more from your
therapist either. Surely it is easier to live my lie and see where that
takes you. You might even acquire some of the behaviour you find
so objectionable in me.

But you know what? This may come as a surprise, but I can also
be my own worst nightmare. I can and I am. You see, at heart my
life is nothing more than illusion-clad confusion. I have no idea why
I do what I do, nor do I care to find out. In fact, the mere notion of
asking the question is so repulsive to me that I employ all of my
resources to repel it.

I reconstruct facts, fabricate illusions, act them out, and thus
create my own reality. It is a precarious state of existence indeed,
so I am careful to include enough demonstrable truth in my illusions
to ensure their credibility. And I am forever testing that credibility
against the reactions of others. Fortunately my real attributes and
accomplishments are in sufficient abundance to fuel my illusions
seemingly forever. And modern society, blessed/cursed modern
society, values most what I do best and thus serves as my
accomplice. Even I get lost in my own illusions, swept away by their
magic.

So, not to worry if you still do not recognise me. I don't recognise
me either. In fact, I regard myself as like everyone else, only
perhaps a little better. Put another way, I end up thinking that
everyone else is like me, only not quite as good. After all, that's
what the universe is telling me.

Ah, there's the rub. THE universe or MY universe? As long as the
magic of my illusions works on me too, the distinction is immaterial.
Hence my need for a fan club. And I am constantly taking fan club
inventory, testing the loyalty of present members with challenges of
abuse, writing off defectors with total indifference, and scouting the
landscape for new recruits. Do you see my dilemma? I use people
who are dependent on me to keep my illusions alive. In actuality it
is I who am dependent on them. Even the rage, that orgasmic
release of pain and anger, doesn't work without an audience. On
some level I am aware of my illusions, but to admit that would spoil
the magic. And that I couldn't bear. So I proclaim that what I do is of
no consequence and no different from what others do, and thus I
create an illusion about my creating illusions. So, no, I don't
recognise me any better than you do. I wouldn't dare. I need the
magic. For the same reason I also fail to recognise others who
behave as I do. In fact, they sometimes recruit me into their fan
clubs. As long as we feed off of each other, who's the worse for
wear? It only confirms my illusion about my illusions: that I am no
different from most other people, just a bit better.

But I AM different and we both know it. Therein lies the root of my
hostility. I tear you down because in reality I am envious of you
BECAUSE I am different. At that haunting level where I see my
illusions for what they are, the illusion that you too create illusions
collapses, leaving me in a state of despair, confusion, panic,
isolation, and envy. You, and others, accuse me of all sorts of
horrible things.

I am totally baffled, clueless. I have done nothing wrong. The
injustice is too much. It only makes the confusion worse. Or is this
too merely another illusion?

How many others like me are there? More than you might think,
and our numbers are increasing. Take twenty people off the street
and you will find one whose mind ticks so much like mine that you
could consider us clones. Impossible, you say. It is simply not
possible for that many people - highly accomplished, respected,
and visible people - to be out there replacing reality with illusions,
each in the same way and for reasons they know not why. It is
simply not possible for so many robots of havoc and chaos, as I
describe them, to function daily midst other educated, intelligent,
and experienced individuals, and pass for normal. It is simply not
possible for such an aberration of human cognition and behaviour
to infiltrate and infect the population in such numbers, virtually
undetected by the radar of mental health professionals. It is simply
not possible for so much visible positive to contain so much
concealed negative. It is simply not possible.

But it is. That is the enlightenment of Narcissism Revisited by
Sam Vaknin. Sam is himself one such clone. What distinguishes
him is his uncharacteristic courage to confront, and his uncanny
understanding of, that which makes us tick, himself included. Not
only does Sam dare ask and then answer the question we clones
avoid like the plague, he does so with relentless, laser-like
precision. Read his book. Take your seat at the double-headed
microscope and let Sam guide you through the dissection. Like a
brain surgeon operating on himself, Sam explores and exposes the
alien among us, hoping beyond hope for a respectable tumour but
finding instead each and every cell teaming with the same resistant
virus. The operation is long and tedious, and at times frightening
and hard to believe. Read on. The parts exposed are as they are,
despite what may seem hyperbolic or far-fetched. Their validity
might not hit home until later, when coupled with memories of past
events and experiences.

I am, as I said, my own worst nightmare. True, the world is
replete with my contributions, and I am lots of fun to be around. And
true, most contributions like mine are not the result of troubled
souls. But many more than you might want to believe are. And if by
chance you get caught in my Web, I can make your life a living hell.
But remember this. I am in that Web too. The difference between
you and me is that you can get out.
 
If you go to our introductory page on psychopathy here: http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm

you will see links on the left sidebar. One of them is "Sam Vaknin Revisited"
http://www.angelfire.com/zine2/narcissism/malignant_narcissism_vaknin_revisited.html
which says:

Malignant Self-Love/Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Sam Vaknin Revisited

For a survivor's view, please keep reading:

As noted on the previous page, Narcissism On the Internet, I was targeted by an Internet psychopath; he was practiced in manipulating someone into loving him. The relationship resembled a cult of two. The brainwashing and manipulation were subtle and insidious- when one becomes vulnerable, when someone penetrates your defences, or you have few defences, it is easy then to begin an onslaught of mental rape.

The one thing that I didn't expect, when I sought support online, was to end up the survivor of not one, but two online psychopaths, not to mention a myriad assortment of fanatics on the support group most heavily associated with him- the cult groupies, the cult followers (not the unsuspecting innocents). I have written about my group experience on that page with some pertinent links.

New facts keep coming to light. They were always there, I imagine, but were largely ignored. But no longer. I have felt for a long time that Sam Vaknin and his book, Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited, were meant to engender a cult following, among other things. He even attests to this and other views about victims, healing, and his hatred for Americans in the following interview: Natterbox Interview With Sam Vaknin

Some Quotes

I, therefore, am doubtful not only with regards to the prognosis of a narcissist but also with regards to the healing prospects of those exposed to his poisoned charms.

I am by far the most intelligent person I know, so, the deep-seated belief that others are bumbling, ineffectual fools is a constant feature of my mental landscape.

The book was never intended to help anyone. Above all, it was meant to attract attention and adulation (narcissistic supply) to its author, myself. Being in a guru-like status is the ultimate narcissistic experience.
Well, what else is new?

Suffering tremendously from the mental rape of an Internet psychopath, knowing that most therapists would not understand (and I could not afford one) I joined Sam Vaknin's board with a psyche like hamburger. At the time, it was the only board around. Over time the games began, and the capricious deletions and many people got hurt. Instead of being in a place of healing, I was in a war zone. I was also, it turns out, deceived and misled, not realising that there was a cultish following.

When you're hamburger, you don't think as clearly, you just want to know you're not alone. I am a mental health professional and you'd think that we would know better, but let me tell you, when you are wounded beyond belief, all your training means nothing. Some people were wonderful on that site, but they left. That's why I started my own site, but didn't include a board. Just some fair and objective information, partly to counteract the dreck. I never imagined that unmasking a fraud would be part of my healing journey.

Sometimes, Providence has a strange sense of humour.

I also felt very humbled. For I was dealing with a sadistic psychopath/sociopath and Sam Vaknin's views fed right into that; to realise that helps you grasp how out of control your life really is. He wasn't talking about Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Mr Vaknin is trying to reform "Narcissism" into an all-encompassing explanation for all bad behaviour, blurs distinctions between the Personality Disorders, and collapses the uniqueness and severity of the disorder for each person into a single [malevolent] entity. In effect, it seemed to me that Sam Vaknin was recreating "Narcissism" and NPD in his own image, according to his worldview. Which means it is not simply narcissism, nor is it NPD. According to the author, it is not anything remotely recognisable as Narcissistic Personality Disorder as he knows it.

My feeling is that, in effect, Sam Vaknin was drawing in vulnerable victims, desperately looking for answers, sometimes easy answers, and recreating them in his own image, inoculating them with his hatred and alienation, and creating a world view where things are worse than imagined, instead of better; it is a world of paranoia, where, in effect, there are monstrous "Ns" under every bush.

I speak as one who, at first, believed a lot of this stuff. He has pathologised almost everyone in every manner. So how can any true healing take place for any of us if we are misled and misinformed- imo, his version of healing, if he had one, is that everyone see it his way. Just like a cult leader wannabe. And his answer against accountability would be, "you knew what I was, so you have only yourself to blame for 'x'".....

Invicta 8/12/03

Update: 8/13/03
I just discovered this information in an article by a forensic psychologist which can be found in toto, here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html?sect=19

In 1970, Otto Kernberg pointed out that the antisocial personality was fundamentally narcissistic and without morality. He called it malignant narcissism, which included a sadistic element. That self-love is central seems correct but this conception failed to go very far with clinicians who needed practical instruments.

The article is a fascinating and rigorous delineation of the history of attempts to define psychopathy and to predict it. Robert Hare's instrument has the most validity and incorporates Kernberg's conception of a narcissistic component.

It reinforces my belief that a "malignant narcissist" in effect resembles a sadistic psychopath and that that is the construct Sam Vaknin's book describes and explains, not Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Now, the above is written by someone who calls herself "Invicta" and says she is a "mental health professional." So, take a look at this page here in the forum where I posted additional info:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=288

So, I'm not so sure that Invicta really "got it" after all even if she did catch on to Vaknin pretty quick.

Another page on Vaknin:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040207165718/http://www.healingnpd.org/Vaknin-revisited.html

(notice this is on the webarchive - not sure why I couldn't find a current copy on the net)

Was There a Need to Revisit Narcissism? An In-Depth Look At Where Sam Vaknin is Leading NPD

By Tony C. Brown

"Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited," by Sam Vaknin was first published in 1997 and is now in its fourth impression. The author is a self-diagnosed "Narcissist" who reached this conclusion while incarcerated in an Israeli prison. Mr. Vaknin describes a process of examining how he came to be in prison, with his marriage over and his finances in shocking condition. It is my understanding that since this book first came into print that he has also come to describe himself as misanthrope and schizoid. Mr. Vaknin has stated that he has never attempted to work through his issues in a formal therapy, rather he believes that his writing to be his therapy. It is my understanding that since this book first came into print that he has also come to describe himself as schizoid and misanthrope.

I voluntarily entered therapy in March of 1996 and was eventually diagnosed by a licensed clinical psychologist as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Recently I was asked by a cross section of people diagnosed with NPD, friends and family of those so diagnosed, and those effected by possible narcissistic behavior to read Sam Vaknin's book and discuss whether I believe his views offer a realistic view of this disorder.

My first objective was to develop a better understanding of Sam. A check of the Curriculum Vitae published on Mr. Vaknin's web site as of August 11 brought forward several concerns. First, there is no listing for where Mr. Vaknin obtained his Bachelor Master's degree. Next, there is a disturbing aspect of Ph.D. that Mr. Vaknin claims from Pacific Western University. A check of the Pacific Western web site revealed, "The University is oriented to those individuals not seeking licenses or credentials requiring accredited degrees. Our programs are not designed to meet any established requirements by private or professional associations. If a license or a credential is desired, a check should be made of state, federal, association, and credential requirements before applying. Pacific Western University has not sought membership in any independent accrediting association." I am of the firm belief that for a Ph.D. to be legitimate it must be offered by an accredited university. It is for this reason that I will not be using the title of Dr. in reference to Mr. Sam Vaknin.

Mr. Vaknin's biography also claims a certificate in counseling offered through Brainbench, an online "school". As near as I can tell from examining the criteria that Brainbench lists on their web site the only requirement for receiving such a certificate is to pass an exam, which appears to be open book. There are no requirements for working in a professional counseling setting and receiving supervision on counseling techniques. It should also be noted that the link to the transcript that is included on Mr. Vaknin's site does not have his name or other readily accessible information for a visitor to confirm this is indeed Sam's transcript, so are being asked to place our trust in his word. I am very concerned that Mr. Vaknin is intentionally misleading people about his credentials in counseling with this certificate that must people will not take the time to investigate.

The best insight I have found for understanding Sam's intentions in writing "Malignant Self Love" came in an interview Bob Goodman conducted with Mr. Vaknin and was published on the Natterbox website in 2000. The following exchange helped me develop a better understanding of Mr. Vaknin's motives and agenda.

Bob Goodman writes, "I've seen �Malignant Self Love' described in some contexts as a self-help book. Often in this genre, we see authors who have triumphed over some personal adversity and wish to help others do the same. But your approach is quite different. You write that your discovery of your own NPD "was a painful process which led nowhere. I am no different -- and no healthier -- today than I was when I wrote this book. My disorder is here to stay, the prognosis poor and alarming." Do you see the book, then, as more a work of self-literacy than self-healing?"

Mr Vaknin replies, "I never described "Malignant Self Love" as a helpful work. It is not. It is a dark, hopeless tome. Narcissists have no horizons, they are doomed by their own history, by their successful adaptation to abnormal circumstances and by the uncompromising nature of their defense mechanisms. My book is a scientific observation of the beast, coupled with an effort to salvage its victims. Narcissists are absent-minded sadists and they victimize everyone around them. Those in contact with them need guidance and help. "Malignant Self Love" is a phenomenology of the predator on the one hand, and a vindication and validation of its prey on the other."

Mr. Goodman continues his interview, "You are a self-professed narcissist, and you warn your readers that narcissists are punishing, pathological, and not to be trusted. Yet hundreds of readers or customers seem to be looking to you for help and advice on how to cope with their own narcissism or their relationship with a narcissist. I'm struck by a kind of hall-of-mirrors effect here. How do you reconcile these seeming contradictions?"

Mr. Vaknin replies, "Indeed, only seeming. I may have misphrased myself. By "helpful" I meant "intended to help." The book was never intended to help anyone. Above all, it was meant to attract attention and adulation (narcissistic supply) to its author, myself. Being in a guru-like status is the ultimate narcissistic experience. Had I not also been a misanthrope and a schizoid, I might have actually enjoyed it. The book is imbued with an acerbic and vitriolic self-hatred, replete with diatribes and jeremiads and glaring warnings regarding narcissists and their despicable behavior. I refused to be "politically correct" and call the narcissist "other-challenged." Yet, I am a narcissist and the book is, therefore, a self-directed "J'accuse." This satisfies the enfant terrible in me, the part of me that seeks to be despised, abhorred, derided and, ultimately, punished by society at large."

It was with this background information that I started my journey of reading Mr. Vaknin's book, "Malignant Self Love". The introduction raised a very serious concern that the author was combining several identifiable psychological terms into one all consuming label which he calls Narcissism. I am deeply concerned that throughout this offering the author is either oblivious to, or ignores the reality of that Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), Anti-Social Personality Disorder, and Psychopaths are not synonymous terms. Throughout the book Sam repeatedly calls behaviors specific to all of these categories "Narcissism". Much of the behavior that the author talks about in this book would be more accurately used to describe Anti-social-Psychopathic behavior, yet is presented as "Narcissism". The message that the author is attempting to articulate to his readers is significantly reduced by the fact that in re-visiting narcissism he appears to be re-defining it to meet his agenda.

The professionals that I have worked with in my therapy and in other settings have expressed a concern that NPD has lost most of its scientific meaning because of what narcissism has come to mean in popular culture. It is for this reason that I believe we must expect anyone claiming expert status on this disorder to take great care not to add to the confusion by allowing their agenda to supercede what is commonly known and accepted regarding NPD and all other identified psychological disorders.

Mr. Vaknin appears to be of the belief that Narcissism is the root or cause of all personality disorders. This leaves me wondering again exactly how Sam defines Narcissism. In this instance he appears to be suggesting that "Narcissism" is the arrest in childhood development which is believed to be the cause of many psychological disorders. The term used by mental health professionals to describe the this early childhood trauma is narcissistic injury or narcissistic wound. A narcissistic injury is a wound inflicted on a young child's ego or true self when they experience trauma such as abuse, neglect, abandonment, death of a parent etc. Evidence appears to confirm that people respond to narcissistic wounds differently depending on a variety of environmental and biological factors which can lead to a wide range of mental illnesses. It is not accurate to suggest that Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Wounds are synonymous terms and they should not be used interchangeably.

It is interesting to me that from the beginning of his book the author makes a distinction as what he calls Narcissists or "N's" to be somehow different from other people. Throughout this book a person who is suffering from what the author calls narcissism is rarely, if ever, referred to as anything other than a narcissist. I cannot recall a place where he indicates that a Narcissist a person. The result is the establishment of an "us" vs. "them" setting which appears to work against healing and coming together as a community.

The anger, to the point of rage, that the author feels almost leaps off the pages, especially in the first couple of chapters. I find myself asking who is the author mad at and how does he feel writing this book is helping him get beyond that anger. If we are to believe that the author regards his writing as therapy than it would be logical to assume he is making an effort to resolve demons hidden deep within himself. This may be happening, though the process is obscure to the reader.

Mr.Vaknin makes several interesting wide reaching observations about the behavior of "Narcissists. One such assessment address whether Narcissists understand cause and effect thinking as it relates to their behavior . "The narcissist does not suffer from a faulty sense of causation. He is able to accurately predict the outcomes of his actions and he knows that he might be forced to pay a dear price for his deeds. But he doesn't care." No supporting scientific information is given to defend this view, so the reader is left to assume this is the opinion of the author. I find this troubling as human beings suffering from NPD often struggle with cause and affect thinking. A person with this disorder views the world through the eyes of a child and attempts to relate to others from the viewpoint much younger than their actual age. It is not that they understand that their behavior will cause a certain reaction from people and do it anyway. They lack the emotional developmental skills needed to understand how and why an adult will react to their actions. On the other hand psychopaths may be able to process how their behavior will affect someone and will make a conscious decision to engage in the behavior despite, maybe because of the affect. This is a huge difference between NPD and Psychopaths and shows how these disorders cannot be lumped into one overriding category.

One of the more revealing commentaries in this offering centers around the authors feelings about treating Narcissists in formal therapy, "his therapist in particular and to psychology in general. He seeks treatment only following a major crisis, which directly threatens his projected and perceived image. We can say that the narcissist's "pride" has to be severely hurt to motivate him to admit his need for help. Even then, the therapy sessions resemble a battleground. The narcissist is aloof and distanced, demonstrates his superiority in a myriad of ways, resents what he perceives to be an intrusion on his innermost sanctum. He is offended by any hint regarding defects or dysfunctions in his personality or in his behavior. A narcissist is a narcissist is a narcissist even when he asks for help with his world and worldview shattered."

This is an interesting assessment that is revealing in many ways. It is accurate to suggest that it often takes a major crisis before a person suffering from NPD will seek therapy, as was the case with myself. Much of what the author talks about are indeed concerns that must be worked through a therapy process. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person suffering from NPD can voluntarily enter therapy and work through these and the many other issues that will come out during the course of a relationship between a therapist and client. It appears that Mr. Vaknin is using this and other aspects of his writing as an excuse for himself not to enter therapy. I regard this as a classic game that is played by people suffering from a lot of the disorders that the author has lumped into the classification of Narcissism. It is unfortunate he appears to lack the insight to get beyond this dilemma as this would be more helpful than implying therapy is very difficult..

Mr. Vaknin spends a considerable amount of time discussing how a "Narcissist" reacts to intimacy. He writes, "intimacy transforms us all into unique beings. It , therefore, negates the uniqueness of those who should be judged to be truly unique even in the absence of intimacy." He goes on to suggest, "since it (intimacy) is a common pursuit, it cannot be unique." It is fascinating that intimacy transforms us into unique beings, but intimacy itself is not unique. Once again there is no scientific data given to support the idea that intimacy cannot be unique. I suspect most people will say every intimate encounter or relationship they have ever experienced has been somewhat unique to all others. Each person is different and we do bring different dynamics to every relationship. This is more evidence of a great need of the author to simplify complex dynamics and place all people into one category.

Throughout the book one gets the impression that the author is offering an indictment against himself as a form of explanation why he will never attempt to work on healing his issues. A classic example being his view of envy and a Narcissist, " narcissist's mind is pervaded by conscious and unconscious transformations of enormous amounts of aggression into envy. The more severe cases of Narcissistic Personality Disorders (NPD) display partial control of their drives, anxiety intolerance and rigid sublimatory channels. With these individuals, the magnitude of the hatred is so great, that they deny both the emotion and any awareness of it. Alternatively, aggression is converted to action or to acting out. This denial affects normal cognitive functioning as well. Such an individual would, intermittently, have bouts of arrogance, curiosity and pseudo-stupidity, all transformations of aggression taken to the extreme. It is difficult to tell envy from hatred in these cases."

There is some truth to this issue, but it is presented in such a way that one might think this cannot be overcome by working with a licensed mental health professional. I have spent a great deal of time working on issues around envy as envy has played a role in some of more serious acting out. It is difficult to talk about such intimate relationships and it is dependent upon the client to bring these raw emotions into a therapy session. Working through envy is dependent upon your specific circumstances but in most cases people suffering from NPD can indeed learn a healthy way of looking others that does not lead to envy.

Toward the end of the book the author confirms a truth about people suffering from NPD and other personality disorders, "Being a child, he feels no need to acquire adult skills or adult qualifications. Many a narcissist do not complete their studies, or even do not have a driving license. They feel that people should adore them as they are and could and should supply them with all the needs that they, as children, cannot themselves secure." This appears to explain why Mr. Vaknin has not taken the time or put forward the effort to secure the credentials which is expected of anyone claiming to hold a doctorate or a counseling certificate.

My overall impression of "Malignant Self Love" is that the author spent a lot of time talking around the issues which has labeled "Narcissism", but offered almost no insight into the emotions which drive the behavior of a person suffering from NPD. I came away with the sense that the author was trying very hard to sell the reader on the idea that he is a Narcissist, coming close to creating a whole new classification of Narcissism in the process. I believe the lasting result of this effort has been to create mass confusion among people about Narcissism, NPD, Anti-social Personality Disorder and Psychopaths.

I believe it is of great significance that Mr. Vaknin stated in the interview with Bob Goodman that "Malignant Self Love" was never intended to help anyone, rather its primary intention was to bring adulation to the author, Sam Vaknin. My honest assessment is this offering amounts to a period of acting out where the author attempted to scapegoat his lifelong behaviors on what he felt he could label an incurable disease. It is of significance that not only has Mr. Vaknin never sought therapy, and does not believe that "Narcissists" can recover, but there is no indication that he has genuine feelings of remorse or regret for his behavior.

The truly disturbing aspect of this book is that the author indicates in the interview with Bob Goodman that there is something about them which has led them to be victimized by narcissists. Sam comments that, "The victims of narcissists have rarely become victims randomly. It is very akin to an immunological response: there is a structural affinity, an inexorable attraction, an irreversible bonding and an ensuing addiction far stronger than any substance abuse. I, therefore, am doubtful not only with regards to the prognosis of a narcissist but also with regards to the healing prospects of those exposed to his poisoned charms. The inverted narcissists (a sub-species of codependent who is specifically attracted to narcissists) are narcissists -- kind of mirror narcissists. As such, they are no less doomed than the original." It is important to stress that the idea of Inverted Narcissism is not recognized by most professionals, and is an example of the author making things up as he goes through his writings. After reading this it is both fascinating and infuriating to contemplate the cult guru leader status that the author has achieved among people who consider themselves "victims of narcissists". Clearly people are not using their brains to think critically and ask themselves and Mr. Vaknin some very difficult questions.

It is widely accepted in the psychological community that a person suffering from NPD does have a conscience and the ability to express genuine remorse and regret. This is one of the significant obvious differences between NPD and what professionals classify as Antisocial-Psychopath. If we allow ourselves to look beyond the book and examine other behavior Mr. Vaknin has displayed in his work the concern regarding the accuracy of his self-diagnosis becomes dramatically magnified.

Sam lives a nomad lifestyle which he describes in the interview with Bob Goodman. Mr. Goodman asks, "I understand you're something of a nomad now, hopping from country to country and job to job. Do you ever long for a more settled existence?" Sam replies, "Never. You are describing a morgue, a cemetery. My life is colorful, adventurous, impossible, cinematic. Sure, I pay a price -- who doesn't? Is there no price to be for a sedentary, predictable, numbing existence? When one is 90 years old, all that is left is memories. You are the director of the movie of your life, a 70 years-long movie. Now, sit back and begin to watch: is it a boring film? would you have watched it had it not been yours? If the answers are negative and positive, respectively, you succeeded to live well, regardless of the price you paid."

Mr. Vaknin's nomad lifestyle is reflected in his ownership of several different support forums for "victims of narcissists". After studying the archives on a variety of forums it seems that when Nr. Vaknin becomes bored with a group or if he feels they are threatening him by moving in a direction he is not comfortable than he ceases participation, sometimes starting a new group on another list. Many people have brought forward questions and concerns to me about the behavior on these support forums. One of the major concerns is centered around Sam deleting posts on his support forums for no reason other than the author challenged his theories toward narcissism, often by suggesting that a person suffering from NPD can recover. It is clear that messages are deleted and people are banned based on the childish needs of Sam Vaknin. I regard these alleged support forums to be some of the unhealthiest such communities I have ever encountered, online or in the Real World. People are encouraged to worship Sam and his theories regarding Narcissism and are actively discouraged from critical thinking. Other concerns have been raised about the intent and behavior around these support forums but it would require a separate case study to examine everything which has taken place in the name of support from Narcissistic abuse.

What are some of the other motives which could lead Mr. Vaknin to engage in what I now firmly believe amounts to what is known as narcissistic acting out? Once again Sam offers insight to this question in an email exchange with Bob Goodman falling their interview. Sam was concerned about the status of the copyright of the article and wrote, "Regarding the copyright: I retain the copyright on everything I write - including responses to an interview. I hate Americans in general and their pusillanimous litigious minds in particular (as does most of the world) -- so, do me a favor: take it or leave it and don't waste my time with this any longer. Thank you, Sam". It is a widely accepted fact that most of the study around NPD has centered around behavior here in the United States. Could it be that Sam saw an opportunity to lash out at Americans as a class of people, perhaps thinking that he is so smart that they will accept him as an authority. It is interesting that he likes America well enough to buy a degree from one of our diploma mills, and obtain a counseling certificate from one of our online schools, thereby obtaining credentials without doing the work required of others. I guess America has its better side, isn't that right Mr. Vaknin?

In the interview with Bob Goodman the author makes it clear exactly how he feels about his own intelligence and authority on narcissism. Goodman asks, "I'm still curious, though, what your attitude is toward your "customers." It's clear you appreciate the attention from them, but do you consider them foolish for seeking advice from a narcissist such as yourself?" Mr. Vaknin replies, "I am by far the most intelligent person I know, so, the deep-seated belief that others are bumbling, ineffectual fools is a constant feature of my mental landscape. But seeking advice from a narcissist about narcissism doesn't sound foolish to me -- if the consumer applies judgement and his or her knowledge of narcissism and its distortions to the advice received." I found this answer to be amusing as it a classic example of a person suffering from a severe personality disorder to greatly exaggerate their own intelligence and importance. It is even more interesting would viewed from the perspective that this work in my opinion confirms that the author has little or no understanding of narcissism and the various other psychological disorders which are related to the topics which he addresses.

I do not believe that Sam Vaknin suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It is my opinion that if he were to be diagnosed by an impartial, licensed mental health professional who has no knowledge of what has gone on over the last six years that the diagnosis would not be NPD. I think it is very regrettable that the author has lead what I believe to be a campaign of hatred and misinformation around Narcissism and NPD. Many people who are suffering from this disorder, their friends and family, and those harmed by what they thought was narcissistic abuse have been affected by this period of acting out. It is time to reclaim the scientific meaning of NPD and reestablish the boundaries around Narcissism, NPD, Anti-social Personality Disorder and Psychopaths.

I am very concerned about the level of misinformation which now hovers over the question of NPD. Sadly much of hatred that we see is a result of this campaign of misinformation. Interestingly enough the majority of people who express the most hate toward what they call Narcissists are referring to people that they have diagnosed themselves, rather than a licensed mental health worker. I am of the firm belief that unless a person has been diagnosed by a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist than you have an opinion and that's all you have. A family member or friend is not qualified to make an impartial judgement based exclusively on the DSM criteria. The reason we have licensed professionals is because these are very complex disorders that we're talking about and it is not possible to understand them in a few sentences. The DSM was never intended to be used the way it now is by the community. It is a tool for professionals that can be a source of great information, but can also be abused, as we have seen repeatedly.

I believe that intentional misinformation and efforts to make large numbers of people hate other people because of their psychological disorders amounts to a form of psychological terrorism. Vulnerable people in considerable amounts of pain are searching for information on healing and are instead finding themselves the target of an unbelievable campaign of hate and misinformation. Once again I state emphatically that we must reclaim the scientific meaning of NPD and remain vigilant in our efforts to develop a process of healing and recovery.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a very complex psychological illness. People suffering from this disorder, their family and friends and victims have all will benefit if we are able to move beyond this effort to redefine Narcissism to fit the needs of one person. All human beings who have been affected by this disorder need to work side-by-side with licensed mental health professionals to get beyond the scare tactics of psychological terrorism and move to a place of healing. In short we need to reclaim NPD and redefine the distinctions of Narcissistic Injury, Narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Psychopaths. It has been suggested to me that there are as many variations of NPD as there are people suffering from this disorder. A commonly accepted reality of human nature is that we all react differently to different stimuli and that no two traumas are exactly the same. Together we can et beyond the rather bizarre attitude that a Narcissist-is a Narcissist-is a Narcissist.


Given that Mr. Vaknin insists on defending his work, primairly through his old writings, it is important to clarify scientific information which he claims to base his work. As with anyone seeking to be accepted in scientific or professional terms, credentials are important. I have yet to see anything to affirm a doctorate degree awarded to Mr. Vaknin from an accredited university. Likewise, I have yet to see anything in terms of counseling skills working with directly with clients in a supervised setting. Given the continued claim of scientific research both of these questions must be addressed.

Several questions have come forward with regards to the scientific process used by Mr. Vaknin. I look forward to seeing answers to these questions that can be confirmed by a truly independent, licensed source.

With regards to those who were identified as NPD. In how many cases was the diagnosis made by a licensed mental health professional, verus self-diagnosis or diagnosis by family, friend etc...

2) With regards to family and friends who have been affected by this disorder. How many of the people involved had their loved ones diagnosed by a licensed mental health professional versus self diagnosis or family/ friend speculation.

3) What method was used by these professionals in diagnosis and whatever therapy might have been attempted.

4) How were people selected to participate in this scientific process?

5) Were motivations for participation evaluated and measured in the final analysis of this data?

6) What was the attitude toward NPD of the professionals who participated in this scientific research?

7) Has there been an independent confirmation of the scientific data and where can it be found on the Internet or elsewhere.

8) Why is the scientific data not included in the book?

Next: Can Sam answer these questions? If not, why not?
The next page tells us:

Conclusion: Scientific Research or More Games From Sam?

Sam Vaknin has been asked to produce research which can be confirmed by an independent licensed or research professional with a degree in psychology to varify his claim that "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" , his frequently asked questions and other writings are based on scientific research. This material should have been readily available from the day he started writing and its absence has raised considerable concern among a growing number of people. Without such evidence documented by an truly independent source this material is opinion and speculation from a man who has made no visible effort to address his own severe issues, which is far removed from how it has been presented to the public.

Since this request for scientific documentation has been made Mr. Vaknin has tried to present himself as something of the guru of healing (using the same material already in question, naturally) and has launched a feeble personal attack on me. This response suggests to me that there is no scientific evidence supporting Mr. Vaknin's claim, thus he has at best mislead the public, perhaps intentionally misleading for his own gain and/or amusement. The interview Mr. Vaknin gave with Natterbox that was published in 2000 gives the most honest insight into what is driving Mr. Vaknin. It is my conclusion this is a game to Mr. Vaknin and there may well be a scientific study into this truth (though I would be inclined not to feed his need for special attention by doing such a study).

Mr. Vaknin's reaction to the request for scientific information was largely predictable from someone suffering from an extreme personality disorder, and has made no progress or effort at healing. By his own admission Mr. Vaknin has a need for constant attention and adulation, it is becoming clear this may be equaled only by a fear of exposure of himself. Mr. Vaknin's response to being exposed is a rage which covers a fear and anxiety about losing his special status. His response is a predictable primitive lashing out at those who are threatening not to only to expose his behavior, but his old wounds as well. There is much to be learned here in terms of asking critical questions and wondering why someone who has never addressed his own issues is trying to help others address painful issues in their lives.

It should be noted that malignant naricissim is well documented in professional psychological terms, and is commonly referred to as a sadistic psychopath rather than Narcissistic Personality Disorder. More information on this is available at Dr. Ramsland article on Psychopaths. As has been noted earlier in this essay Mr. Vaknin has incorrectly classified all levels of what he calls "Narcissisim" into one classification. An article addressing the continuum of narcissism can be found at Degrees of Narcissism. There is also a very interesting professional article by a psychologist in Australia who believes there are at least four different types of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and nine heads of narcissism. This article can be seen at Different degrees of NPD. I am amused that one of Mr. Vaknin's devout supporters pointed out that in her words, "Sam loves this site and has put it on his Narcissistic Abuse list many times." Interesting that he would put out material which goes against his basic point of view that all narcissists are the same. In my mind this reflects an inability to discern material and determine if they support your work.

I believe that those people who engage in critical thinking and ask the tough questions and demand answers from Sam Vaknin and all others, including myself, should be able to come to a clear understanding of what is NPD and what is invovled in healing. We do not need a guru of healing and I have no interest in serving in such a role. Mr. Vaknin has built his reputation as someone with an incurable disorder who has no access to his true self. His situation has been so helpless that he has not even made any noticeable effort at professional help. There is a certain irony, almost to the point of being comical, in watching Mr. Vaknin's efforts to be a leader in healing this disorder. Amazing how he had no such interest until he was faced with exposure.

Many (most) people who are serious about information regarding healing are at a level well beyond where they turn to Sam Vaknin for guidance. Now that we understand that Sam is not talking about NPD and that he has no credentials or confirmed scientific research we need to let go of old patterns of thinking that have been established over the last several years. Together we can make our way along the long and often times painful journey toward healing. It is unfortunate that gross misrepresentation of professional credentials, unscientific material presented as scientific and other misinformation and games have been conducted in the name of understanding, and healing a disorder as serious as NPD. We can only hope that we now stand at the beginnig of a new era of working to truly understand and heal. IF your interested in such a journey we welcome you and look forward to what you have to share.
Here's another one that is only available on the web archive:

natterbox

Page: 1 2 3 4

The Ambassador of Narcissism: An Interview with Sam Vaknin

--------------

By Bob Goodman

January 5, 2000 |

In Greek mythology, the gods cast a pernicious spell on Narcissus as punishment for his refusal to love others. Peering into a pool of water, Narcissus sees a beautiful being and falls madly in love, never realizing that the object of his affection is nothing more than his own reflection. His love unrequited, Narcissus pines away and perishes, leaving only a flower in his wake.

From this myth comes the term "narcissism." The psychological condition of narcissism in extremis, known as "Narcissistic Personality Disorder," was first given medical credence by the American Psychiatric Association in 1980. Those under the spell of NPD share a penchant for compulsive self-promotion, doomed grandiosity, and aggressive avoidance of empathy.

Since the April '97 debut of his "Malignant Self Love" Web site, Sam (Shmuel) Vaknin has created a niche for himself as an expert on the mechanics of narcissism. According to Vaknin, his site drew about 140,000 visitors last year, and he has self-published its contents in a book by the same name. He also maintains a Web-based discussion group for people suffering from NPD, as well as those involved in relationships with narcissists.

Judging by his curriculum vitae, Vaknin, 38, an Israeli-born businessman and writer now living in Macedonia and working as a newspaper columnist and government advisor, would seem an unlikely candidate to be dispensing psychological advice. He has no medical or academic training in the field (his Ph.D from Pacific Western University is in philosophy); he's a childless divorcee; his occupational history is peripatetic (he indicates he made millions through a host of technology-related business ventures); and he's an ex-con, having spent 11 months in an Israeli prison for criminal stock manipulation. (Vaknin says his actions were an outgrowth of his effort to expose government corruption; click here to see the sidebar, "Vaknin's Stock Manipulation," for more details.)

And yet, Vaknin's writing, replete with academic coinages such as SNSS (Secondary Narcissistic Supply) and FEGO (false ego), unabashed condemnation of narcissists as predators, and anarchic free-association, goes places where a dispassionate professional would probably fear to tread. That's because, on this subject, Vaknin has the ultimate credential: he's a full-fledged, and probably incurable, sufferer of NPD, himself.

On his book jacket, Vaknin writes that "Malignant Self-Love" "was composed in jail as I was trying to understand what had hit me. My nine years old marriage had desolved, my finances were in a shocking condition, my family estranged, my reputation ruined. Slowly, the realization that it was all my fault, that I was sick and needed help, penetrated the decades-old defenses I had erected around me." In his subsequent writings and Internet publications, Vaknin leverages the knowledge gained from researching NPD, chiefly his own, to offer an insider's guide to this insidious and misunderstood condition.

Despite his own cautionary advice about the dangers of trusting a narcissist, he appears to have garnered a faithful following. On a Web site entitled "Family By Choice," one reader went so far as to nominate Vaknin for an award with the following remark: "Sam, despite his illness, has resolutely used his insight into his disorder to severely regiment and train his behavior to be solely helpful to others."

Following a brief phone conversation, in which Vaknin, in his heavy Israeli accent, was courteous and formal, we conducted this interview entirely by e-mail over the course of several weeks; it appears here in edited form. Throughout, the multi-faceted persona which Vaknin attributes to himself and to his fellow narcissists -- equal parts guru, confidence man, and enfant terrible -- was very much in evidence.

But our "transactions" did not end there. Prior to the interview's publication in Natterbox, I made a surprising discovery: I had been scooped. Vaknin had gone ahead and published a version of the Vaknin interview on the Vaknin Web site. When I sent an e-mail to clarify who had the right to publish what, I found myself on the receiving end of Vaknin's vitriol, as he fired off two angry e-mails (click here to see the sidebar, "Dueling Webmasters," for the full e-mail exchange). In a follow-up e-mail, dispatched twice the next day, he offered apologies and urged me to publish the exchange as a prime example of NPD in action. I was left to ponder whether there could be anything more narcissistic than a narcissist promoting his own narcissism.
It might be useful to search the net and the archives and find any related materials and post them here, with links (even if the links die at some point), just so we will have a cache of the information.

I don't think Vaknin is a narcissist, I think he's a psychopath and he's doing what psychopaths do best: manipulate and use people and whatever situation he is handed as a platform for the next manipulation.
 
All of this, of course, reminds me of the following chapters from "The Mask of Sanity" about psychopaths as doctors and shrinks.

The Psychopath as Physician

Excerpt from: The Mask of Sanity
by Hervey Cleckley, M.D.

25. The psychopath as physician

When first seen by me, he was still in his early forties. From the country town in which he was practicing medicine an inquiry came concerning his professional ability. Everyone regarded him as a brilliant man. His patients loved him, and while he was working regularly, his collections were more than adequate. It was often impossible to find him, for now and then, in the classic manner, he lay out in third-rate hotel rooms or in the fields semiconscious until he could be found and coaxed back home.

This was tolerantly accepted as one of his idiosyncrasies by the rustic folk he attended. It was inconvenient, but like drought and the boll weevil, what the devil could one do about it? The community, in which not only social drinking but even card playing and dances were generally regarded as devices of Satan, intuitively sensed that the Doc's doings had little or nothing in common with the proscribed gaieties or frivolities. Although a man known to drink cocktails for pleasure and even a woman who smoke cigarettes might have been ostracized, local deacons and town gossips made no concerted attack on the doctor.

The inquiry about his ability mentioned previously was prompted by the following incident:

A patient whom he had been attending off and on for several weeks had noticed that he occasionally seemed glassy-eyed and slightly irrelevant. Neither she nor her family, however, was prepared for such a bedside manner as was his on the last visit.

When the door was opened for the doctor, he swung in unsteadily with it, hanging desperately to the knob, which he apparently hesitated to relinquish. Breathing hard, he muttered inaudibly for a moment, winked inanely at three children who had withdrawn to a corner, gave several short, piercing cheers, and slipped to the floor. Retaining his instrument bag in one hand, he began, still prone, to crawl toward his patient's room. Switching his body from side to side, he made slow but spectacular progress, hesitating every few yards to give a series of hoarse, emphatic grunts or barks. This pantomime was taken by the family to represent an alligator slipping through a bog. In this manner he reached the bedside of the patient.

This man's history shows a great succession of purposeless follies dating from early manhood. He lost several valuable hospital appointments by lying out sodden or by bursting in on serious occasions with nonsensical uproar. He was once forced to relinquish a promising private practice because of the scandal and indignation which followed an escapade in a brothel where he had often lain out disconsolately for days at a time.

Accompanied by a friend who was also feeling some influence of drink, he swaggered into this favorite retreat and bellowed confidently for women. Congenially disposed in one room, the party of four called for highballs. For an hour or more only the crash of glasses, scattered oaths, and occasional thuds were heard. Then suddenly an earnest, piercing scream brought the proprietress and her servants racing into the chamber. One of the prostitutes lay prostrate, clasping a towel to her breast, yelling in agony. Through her wails and sobs she accused the subject of this report of having, in his injudicious blunderings, bitten off her nipple. An examination by those present showed that this unhappy dismemberment had, in fact, taken place. Although both men had at the moment been in bed with her, the entertainer had no doubt as to which one had done her the injury.

Feeling ran strong for a while, but, by paying a large sum of money as recompense for the professional disability and personal damage he had inflicted, the doctor avoided open prosecution. Before a settlement had been made, the guilty man attempted to persuade his companion to assume responsibility for the deed. It would be less serious for the other man, he argued, since his own prominence and professional standing made him a more vulnerable target for damaging courtroom dramatics and for slander. His companion, however, declined this opportunity for self-sacrifice with great firmness.

Less spectacular performances include locking himself in a hotel room alone where he would drink to stupefaction, arouse the management, break furniture, telephone his wife that he had decided to kill himself, drink more, and remain until taken by police or friends who broke open the door.

He also contributed vividly to the liveliness of a dance some years ago. His older brother, whom he was visiting in a New England town and who was an officer in a country club where the dance was in progress, remonstrated with him, urging him to leave because his loud and disorderly behavior, having already attracted unfavorable attention, was now beginning to cause consternation. Whooping in indignation, he at once grappled with his elder on the porch of the club where they stood.

The orchestra having stopped for intermission, a large number of ladies and gentlemen were strolling on the terrace below. Attracted by frantic outcries, reiterated curses, and the sound of scuffling above, these bystanders looked up to see the two brothers whirling dizzily in combat. The younger man, his strength finally prevailing, got the older against the banister and seemed about to throw him over. As observers ran to quell the tumult, our subject, having in his position of vantage breath to spare for oratory, caused the golf course to echo with his threats and insults.

"You bastard! You goddamned - bastard! You son of a bitch! I'll kill you, bastard and son of a bitch that you are!" he yelled, pushing his brother back farther over the banister as the echoes returned his violent words. One wonders if the brother was observant enough at the moment to note the two-edged nature of the term with which he was being so loudly reviled. Rescuers soon interrupted the performance. Our subject could very probably have thrown his brother over before they came, but his intention apparently was to make a scene rather than to inflict serious injury.

After one of his longest periods of regular work and apparently satisfactory adjustment, which lasted nearly a year, he attended the meeting of a regional medical society in a large city where an exploit brought him to the notice of local newspapers.

FOUND DRUNK ON HIGH ALTAR OF ST. PHILIP'S CHURCH

A man listed as Dr. ___ of ____ was arrested yesterday morning and charged with burglary when he was found asleep on the altar of St. Philip's Church. Officer J. G. Coates who made the arrest said that a painter engaged in painting St. Philip's dome found the door to the church open this morning and called him. Investigation revealed the man asleep on the altar. The officer quoted Dr. ____ as saying that someone else had been with him but that he could not remember who. The doctor seemed to be eminently rational but could give no adequate reason for his inopportune presence in such a place. While a charge of burglary had been placed, according to records at police barracks, a complete examination of the church property revealed the fact that nothing was missing.
He proved to the satisfaction of the authorities that he had entered the church with no intention of stealing or doing any other damage. I am indeed strongly convinced that this contention was correct. Finding a man in so preposterous a situation, the newspaper reporters had mistakenly, but understandably, assumed that some motive such as burglary must, of plain necessity, be responsible for his presence. What his purpose really was, we must admit, is difficult to explain in terms of ordinary human strivings.

He often swears off drinking and expresses the intention of devoting himself to constructive and regular occupation but, despite all the serious troubles that his conduct has brought him, he actually continues as before.

26. The psychopath as psychiatrist

In the group who show some fundamental characteristics of the typical psychopath but who make a good or fair superficial adjustment in society are sometimes found men who hold responsible positions. Lawyers, business executives, physicians, and engineers who show highly suggestive features of the disorder have been personally observed. Perhaps one would think that the psychiatrist, with good opportunity to observe the psychopath, would eschew all his ways. I believe, however, that a glimpse can be given of characteristics of the psychopath in such a person.

Let us first direct our attention to him many years ago when, as an author of some papers on psychiatric subjects, he attracted the interest of several inexperienced young physicians then at the beginning of their careers. The articles, it is true, were marred by grammatical errors and vulgarities in English a little disillusioning in view of the suave and pretentious style attempted by the author. At the time, however, they impressed this little group of naive admirers as having all the originality that the author so willingly allowed others to impute to them, and, as a matter of fact, implied not too subtly himself in every line of his work.

When seen later at a small medical meeting at which no experienced psychiatrists were present, this author seemed very grand indeed. The actual ideas expressed in his paper were, to be fair, culled from the primers of psychiatry and psychology, but he had an authoritative way of making them seem entirely his own, and marvelous, too. Despite his cool and somewhat commanding air, he succeeded in giving an impression of deep modesty. Everything seemed to accentuate his relative youth which, in turn, hinted of precociousness and of great promise. The effect he had on his audience, most of whom were general practitioners from small towns, was tremendous. An opportunity to meet this splendid figure of a psychiatrist and to sit at his feet during the rest of the evening was avidly welcomed by several of his new admirers.

Dr. _____, though still in his middle thirties, enjoyed a wide and enviable reputation in a section of the country where psychiatrists were at the time almost unknown. After some work at hospitals in a distant state where he was born, he had come and set up as a specialist in his present habitat. He soon obtained a small institution in which he began to direct treatment of psychiatric patients. Reports indicate that it flourished and expanded greatly.

It was generally agreed that his learning and ability were chiefly responsible for his rapid rise to local prominence. Ephemeral rumors hinted that the idolized Dr. ____ made a practice of treating by expensive and doubtful procedures any patient of means whom he could obtain for as long as the money lasted and of then dismissing him or sending him promptly to a state hospital. It was also heard that with female patients he sometimes suggested, or even insisted on, activities (as therapy) which are specifically proscribed in the Hippocratic oath. But what physician has not had similar things said about him? The impressive bearing of the man and his reiterated and rather eloquent appeals for higher scientific consecration on the part of his colleagues snuffed out these feeble stirrings of adverse criticism which were almost universally ascribed to jealousy.

The lion of the evening seemed to put himself out in being gracious to his young admirers who were indeed nobodies on the fringe of the wonderful field which he seemed to dominate. His good fellowship was so hearty and yet so suave that one could scarcely bring himself to see the faint underlying note of condescension.

The privilege of driving this relatively great personage out to a country place where hospitality beckoned was seized by one of the young physicians, In the car an attempt was made to turn the conversation to psychiatric questions which Dr. ____ had raised in his papers. He made a few stilted replies but soon drifted from the subject into talk that was hardly more than pompous gossip, His companion, fearing that such a learned man might be talking down to spare him the embarrassment of incomprehension, kept returning to psychiatry, trying to make it plain that no such embarrassment would discount the pleasure of hearing the master. Soon the replies of this alleged master left the young man in serious doubt not only as to the great one's knowledge, but even as to his interest in the subject.

Dr. _____, in his more popular talks and articles, as well as occasionally in those directed toward rustic medical groups, often gave psychiatric interpretations of literature and art. One of his more recent efforts in this line touched briefly but ambitiously on the works of Marcel Proust. Being then in the middle of an earnest pilgrimage among the psychopathologic wonders of Remembrance of Things Past, the fledgling psychiatrist, perhaps hoping to make a good impression but also eager for enlightenment, ventured a question on this subject.

The master at this time was calm and alert, but his remarks were so beside the point that his disciple wavered. Dr. _____ was perfectly self-assured, in fact politely pontifical, but the more he talked the clearer it became that he had not read the book at all. It finally became equally clear that even Proust's name was unfamiliar, and the disquieting suspicion dawned on his admirer that he had never encountered it except in the excerpt from some review which he had apparently come upon and used. He had not been sufficiently interested in what he plagiarized even to retain the name and was now imputing it to some imaginary Viennese psychiatrist. He followed this pretension only for a moment, however, and only as a stepping stone to banalities with which he was familiar and about which he spoke with such deliberation and assurance that they almost seemed marvelous. Never in all this persiflage did he show the least sign of confusion or timidity. Apparently he felt that he had kept intact his impressive front. Even at this stage of the acquaintanceship it was hard to avoid suspicion that any important distinction between such a front and more substantial things was not in the orbit of his awareness.

With some remark about putting aside these grave and ponderous subjects, he sang a few lines of a surprisingly obscene ditty, clapped his companion on the back, and suggested with gusto: "When their social doings are over, let's you and I go get us a couple of good frisky chippies!"

Despite the conviviality implicit in this remark (and no less in his tone), in some way hard to describe he still maintained the attitude of one who means to insist on his distinct superiority even while for a moment generously waiving certain restrictions of caste and allowing his companion a more respectable footing, It was only a quasi-equality that he offered, however-an indulgence such as an adult might allow a child who on some special occasion is permitted to sit up and play that he is grown. The friendship he seemed to offer was at best a morganatic one.

His discourse during the rest of the drive, especially after he had stopped on the way for "a couple of quick ones," was coarse and humorless. It seemed impossible to strike a sincere idea from him on any subject.

On arriving at the host's place, a merry but entirely civilized company was found drinking highballs, singing around the piano, or talking enthusiastically in small groups. The singing was in key, and the talking was not loose or aimless. For the most part the gathering was composed of people who, though lively, had some interest in general ideas as contrasted with the trivia of daily life, and a few slowly ingested drinks brought out humorous and interesting conversation. The house was not very large or the furnishing spectacular, but the place, like the men and women present, gave a strong impression to the newcomer that he was in orderly surroundings, among people of dignity and good will.

A young, very good-looking married woman who had an amateur but genuine interest in psychiatric questions and who meant to be polite to the distinguished stranger, began talking to him with enthusiasm. He soon led her off into another room. A moment later, on passing through this room, one of the young physicians was hailed by a feminine voice and, responding, found the two in a nook, the lady pulling herself away from the doctor with some effort but with equanimity. It was plain that his crudely aggressive overtures were not welcome to her and she urged the other man, who was an old friend, to join them on the davenport. Apparently trying to start a conversation, she asked the celebrity about psychoanalysis, a subject on which he sometimes expounded to lay gatherings in such a way as to give the erroneous impression that he was a qualified analyst.

"If I could get you out in a car I'd psychoanalyze you right now," he muttered, low but loud enough to be overheard, accompanying his words with a confident leer. The savant had evidently misread the spirit of the party. The lady rose, smiled quickly at her other companion as if to say she knew a disagreeable fellow when she saw one, and quietly rejoined a group.

Dr. _____ now expressed the desire for straight liquor, making strong, derogatory remarks about highballs and those who drank them. Ordering his former disciple to come, he strode toward the kitchen. The former disciple, by this time feeling heavily responsible for the master, made haste to follow.

In the kitchen Dr. _____ began to order the servants about in profane and petulant fashion. He had gulped one or two small whiskeys when several men wandered in looking for ice. One of these, an eager intern, expressed interest in the important investigative work which Dr. _____ had begun now, in loud, boastful tones, to announce himself engaged in.

"If you want a job there, son, just lemme know," he thundered. Swaggering about, he made an all-embracing gesture. "At the ______ Institute I'm it. I'm the big cheese, I tell you." No one saw fit to dispute these claims.

He began then a tirade on the subject of his executive ability, his scientific standing, his knowledge of the stock market, his sexual power, and his political influence. Having delivered himself of this, he pushed his audience aside and sauntered back into the sitting room. There he recognized an old acquaintance, a physician who had formerly been on the resident staff with him at some hospital but in an inferior capacity. This man, a newcomer, was talking with the hostess in the midst of a small group of men and women.

"Why you old son of a bitch!" Dr. ______ shouted. "Come over here and set your goddamned a__ in this chair and talk to your chief."

It was no time for vacillation. The newcomer and the young physician who had accompanied Dr. _____ to the party caught each other's eye and quickly hurried the celebrity to the door. He pulled back at first but soon came along satisfactorily as both companions sought so earnestly to cajole him that the words of each were lost to the other. Turning to his companions just as the door was gained, he shouted:

"Chippies, did you say?"

On the way to his hotel he began to protest. He was by no means confused from drink.

"Be goddamned if I go there! What kind of dirty bastards are you anyway?"

He became insistent - nay, even defiant - about going where he could obtain women. The new member of the party, who had seen him through many such episodes and who, to the other escort's relief, kindly assumed charge of the case, advised that he be humored.

Dr. ____ himself, through an effervescence of obscene threats, muttered directions to the driver. Expecting to find an ordinary brothel, both of his companions were surprised to arrive at a large outdoor pavilion where an orderly dance was going on. Before a definite decision could be reached about what to do, Dr. _____ was out of the car.

"Luke! Luke!" he yelled imperiously.

A pleasant-looking man appeared.

"You've got to get us a good piece of t___ and get it quick, boy!" he ordered. "We'll wait here and watch 'em dance by."

The man called Luke, so far as could be learned, was under serious obligations to Dr. ____ and apparently meant to obey him. He confided that he had stood by his friend and benefactor in many such sprees in this town. Luke had pleasant manners and was not drinking.

"God, that's one!" the savant muttered. "What an ____! Can you get that slut out here, Luke?" He was far enough away not to be overheard by the dancers. Luke smiled and shook his head. "There's one!" the doctor commented again with enthusiasm. "She's rutting! That one's rutting! I can tell it." His subsequent remarks can hardly be suggested even in writing on a medical subject.

His two companions left him now in custody of Luke with instructions that he be brought back to the car when this was possible without violence. Luke had asked not to be left with sole responsibility.

Some time later the doctor returned. It was difficult to judge whether or not he had gained all the satisfaction he sought. He made it plain that he had found a companion but despite his boastful garrulousness did not give the final details of the encounter. In view of his windy frankness, this caused doubt as to how far he had succeeded in his aims. Beyond question he had made considerable progress. He announced this much loudly, holding up a finger, sniffing it as he did so, and making a comment of such ingenious distastefulness that even his brother physicians blenched with revulsion. The new disciple could not but ruminate about what appraisals of woman and of human relationships, what attitudes toward basic goals, prevailed beneath this successful man's ordinarily impressive exterior.

On the road back to his hotel he cursed truculently at other cars. He came in willingly. While going up on the elevator, he pinched the buttocks of the girl who ran the machine, apparently oblivious of several passengers. There was no gaiety or human touch in these actions, only a sullen, derogatory aggressiveness. He uttered vague challenges and threats emphasizing his combative prowess and his readiness to fight anyone who might take issue with him on any question.

On entering his room, he immediately made for a whiskey bottle and began calling raucously for ice. He became loud and offensive when his companions sought to excuse themselves, banged the table with his fists, and offered grandiosely to fight and to fight at once. He was a tall, powerful man and by no means too drunk to put on a lively and embarrassing scene if crossed.

He cursed the bellboy, who had arrived meanwhile, with such foul oaths it was incredible that he took them. Pouring himself a quick drink, he called for careful attention from his companions.

Had he told them about his children? No. They must see pictures of them. He began to praise them extravagantly, to extol his love for them it, sickening terms of pathos, or pseudopathos. He spoke of his plans for their future. His entire manner began to change, and it was plain that he had determined notions about keeping all his children what he called pure. A surprisingly moralistic aspect of this psychiatrist began to appear. Cheap expressions of sentimentality fairly gushed from him. In a loosely emotional strain he recited rhymes by Edgar A. Guest about the little ones. Then he momentarily broke down and blubbered. Tears ran down his cheeks.

The bellboy had brought ice and Dr. _____ insisted on pouring out drinks, swaggering about now in his earlier manner. When his companions insisted on leaving, he promptly announced that he would accompany them. He could not be persuaded to go to bed and quickly became overbearing when persuasion continued. Though he had, of course, taken a good deal of whiskey, he seemed to know perfectly what he was doing. In fact, he did not really seem drunk in the ordinary sense of the word. Both of his companions felt that this was not a person irresponsible for the moment who must be protected and prevented from doing things he would regret. On the contrary, one was strongly impressed that this was the man himself.

Going down on the elevator he renewed his practices on the polite girl who operated it, becoming so annoying to her that his companions had to interfere. He called a taxi and insisted that all proceed at once to a brothel. Having had enough experience for one night in trying to be their brother's keeper, his companions were obdurate. He drove off, cursing them viciously as disgraceful specimens of humanity and making derogatory remarks about their virility.

"What's the matter with him?" asked the younger.

"Just a queer fellow that way," replied the one who knew him well. "He's cool and calculating, a good executive, and a rather pleasant man superficially during the week, though always a little arrogant. Even when on the job he's not to be trusted. Every time he gets a chance, he does just about what you've seen him do tonight. He keeps under wraps of outer dignity at the hospital and he's careful not to take them off under circumstances which would cause him to get in serious trouble. He passes as a great gentleman in polite but unsophisticated circles at home. But the cloak must be very uncomfortable. Almost every weekend he makes an opportunity to get it off, and he's always then just the man you saw tonight."

"But won't his reputation suffer from what he did tonight?"

"Probably not. He is a long way from home. Since the town is small, he evidently assumed that all the people he was thrown with tonight were country bumpkins who don't count for much and who would be overawed by him. He judges people only by superficial appearances of wealth and power, and he is seldom impressed except by gaudy display. He kept up a good front at the medical meeting. He is exceedingly shrewd, in a shallow sense, about where and when he behaves naturally. At home he often goes off into swamps with groups of men far beneath him in his own estimation and who are apparently flattered to be chosen. The trips are ostensibly to catch catfish or, in the winter, to shoot ducks; but actually it's merely to get rowdily drunk, boast and shout inanely, and sprawl about on the ground or in muddy boats around the camp. He wasn't drunk tonight. Out in the swamp he often passes through this obscene, blustering phase in an hour or two and reaches the sodden state that one might suspect is his goal.

"Sometimes he wants women. It doesn't matter what women or under what circumstances. Some of the people who know him say that he prefers low, unprepossessing partners, but it has always seemed to me that there was no preference at all, and I've seen him often. A beautiful woman means no more to him than an imbecilic harlot, but on the other hand the harlot means no more than the beautiful woman.

"Sometimes when the idea of sex is stirring him he gets too drunk to make much of his opportunities. I'll never forget one incident. It was about daybreak down in the swamps where we'd been fishing. He'd gone out on a sexual mission pretty drunk. We found him at a whitewashed shack. It was time to leave for home so another fellow and I rolled him off a fat illiterate washerwoman. She must have weighed two hundred pounds!

"'Sakes, Boss,' she muttered, 'he's far gone dis time. Ain't done nuthin' yet!' It was my last fishing trip with him."

The next morning with fresh sunlight streaming into the hotel, the youngest member of the group, having finished breakfast, met Dr. _____ in the lobby. He was emerging from a telephone booth. Tall, self-assured, clear-eyed, neat as a dandy, and fashionably dressed, he looked the fine figure of a man.

He spoke affably. With a disarming, boyish smile he made some reference to the previous evening. His polite expressions and poised tone made clear the implication that it had been a pleasant occasion and had cemented friendships. The inconspicuous trace of condescension first noted on meeting him was now more obvious, but this somehow tended to make his cordiality seem more precious. He was as sober as a man can be and showed no signs of hangover. Indeed, as his other companion of the night had said, he must have been drinking very moderately.

The former admirer of Dr. _____, who was an old friend of the lady whom he had offered to "psychoanalyze" in a parked car before, stopped at her house later in the day to say goodbye before leaving the city.

"Come in. I must speak to you," she said. There was some indignation in her tone but more mischief and merriment.

"What about your friend, the famous psychoanalyst?" she said, relishing, in all friendliness, the other's discomfiture. She was a person of some sophistication and poise. Being also pretty, vital, and desirable to men, she knew well how to take care of herself in ordinary company. She had been married for several years and gave a strong impression of being happy and in love with her husband.

"Well," she continued, "I must tell you. You are interested in queer people."

"Early this morning the cook came and woke me up. 'It's the telephone,' she said. 'Damn the telephone, Lou!' I told her. 'Don't you know I was up till all hours last night?' 'Yes'm,' she answered, 'but the gentleman says you'll speak with him, and it's important business.'

"I picked up the phone, "'Good morning, Mary' said an unfamiliar, self-assured, masculine voice. I was wondering who it could be - knowing me well enough to use my first name and still so pompous. Then, just as I recognized the voic

"'Mary, this is Doctor _____.' From his tone you'd have judged he thought I ought to sing for joy!

" 'Yes indeed,' I said. He then baldly suggested that I make a date with him for this afternoon. He'd come out for me at 4 P.M. or, better still, he suggested, I could meet him at a drugstore downtown.

"Really, there was something so superior about him, a sort of indescribably cool insolence, or I don't know what ... about his manner, I mean ....and after last night! ... not just the proposition itself ... that I fairly turned white with rage.

"I wanted so much to blast him with scorn that I was at a loss for words. When you get that mad it's easy to lose your head. The calm and effective expression of indignation by which ladies in Victorian novels squelched 'insults' is hard to put into the idiom of today. Trying not to make myself unnecessarily ridiculous, but trusting the reply would register as final, I said:

" 'Is that so? Sorry, but I'm afraid I'll have to forego that pleasure.'

"He then insisted, not like a lover or even like one who's making any decent pretense of being a lover, but coolly, almost arrogantly, like a fake gentleman who's after a servant girl. I must have succeeded in making myself a little clearer by this time, for he resigned himself about this afternoon. But I wasn't done with him.

"He then began to say that he would be back in this city soon, probably every now and then. He'd like to see me on some of these occasions. He'd call me when he came. No, perhaps it would be better if he dropped me a note and let me know when he'd be here. Then I could call him! I was getting so vexed that I scarcely caught the implication that he didn't want to telephone and find George here.

"For a moment I couldn't answer. Then I suddenly remembered the way he announced himself: 'Mary, this is Doctor _____!' The overwhelming effrontery of the whole farce came over me. It was too much! 'Mary, this is Doctor _____!' That priceless ass calling me by my first name and referring to himself as 'Doctor _____!' And under such circumstances! Why, he probably pictured us having our little bout of 'love' in the same strain. 'You're so lovely, Mary, do let me take off your pants!' 'Oh, Doctor - (blushing), you're so genteel and handsome!'

"Can you beat it! I ask you as an old friend! The bumptious swine didn't even have enough delicacy in what he probably thought of as lovemaking to grant me the intimacy to call him Jack, or Harry, or Percival, or Happy Hooligan, or whatever else he's named. He's such an indescribable prig that he probably doesn't even allow himself to think of himself in terms of a first name.

"I just had time to get out the words which must have come with something of a lilt:

"'Yes, you just wait until I call you!'

"I'm ashamed to confess they were almost lost in a burst of laughter. It wasn't ladylike at all the way I laughed. It was belly-shaking laughter. Homeric laughter. Rabelaisian laughter, maybe. I couldn't stop.

"Lou, the cook, came back in and asked what was the matter. 'I can't explain,' I told her and went on laughing.

"What sort of people are you psychiatrists anyway?" she now asked in her spirited, arch way, again enjoying her old friend's discomfiture which was now almost lost in wonder and amusement. "I bet that bat-house troubadour went away thinking I had become hysterical with delight at the opportunity he offered."

"That might not be absurd after all," the friend murmured, remembering the self-possession and happy assurance with which Dr. _____ had emerged from the telephone booth that morning.

This case is offered for what it may be worth. No diagnosis of psychopathic personality has been made. Occasional news of him over the next few years indicated that he was still outwardly well adjusted. I believe it likely that he continues to prosper and I have not the faintest notion that he will ever reach the wards of a psychiatric hospital except in the capacity of a physician and executive. He does not really succeed in impressing people of discernment, though he continues to think he succeeds in this. He impresses many people who are themselves essentially undiscriminating. He cannot tell these from others with sounder judgment and regards himself as a great success socially as well as financially.

Such a personality shows suggestions of an inner deviation qualitatively similar to what is found in the fully developed sociopath. The shrewdness is typical. Unlike others, such as Max, whose cleverness brings only momentary success in objective dealing with the world, this man's similar cleverness is applied with enough persistence for him to advance continuously. He advances financially and, within limits, even professionally. He is a smart fellow and, in a very superficial sense, has a glib facility in medical activities. In relations with the public he shows an excellent knack, an artful sense of showmanship.

For the more fundamental questions that immediately confront a person interested in psychiatry he apparently has no awareness, and therefore no concern. The problems of life that make up the chief and underlying interest for real psychiatrists do not exist for him. He is said to give many of his patients about what they feel they need. With relatively uncomplex and emotionally shallow persons his amazing self-confidence is perhaps more quickly effective than the deeper understanding, with its inevitable lack of certainties, that another sort of man would bring to his work.

His patients are reported to show improvement that compares favorably with that shown by most of the patients treated by physicians whose aims are more serious. We must not forget that pseudoscientific cultists frequently succeed in relieving psychoneurotic patients of their symptoms by absurd measures. These practitioners, if they work in accordance with the fundamental principles of their craft, have no awareness of the real problems underlying such symptoms and little or no ability to help patients understand and deal with these problems. Such a man as this appears to be similarly limited. If one imagines his attempting pertinent psychiatric study of a seriously motivated person, of a person whose world is quite foreign to him, the picture becomes farcical.

This man then, the traits already mentioned notwithstanding, is one who, unlike the obvious psychopath, succeeds over many years in his outer adjustment. Granting that the behavior just described is fairly typical and is persisted in, the conclusion follows that inwardly he is very poorly adjusted indeed, The quality of happiness he knows and the degree of reality in which he experiences so much that is major in human relations are such that, despite his superficial success, he must fail to participate very richly in life itself.

Let it be pointed out that the drunkenness, immature sex attitudes, execrable taste, and deceit are not in themselves the basis for suspecting that this man is affected in some measure with the same disorder that affects the patients presented previously. Many readers would perhaps dismiss all this with the thought that our man might be more properly called a bad fellow and his status left at that. The significant points are these:

His impulse to drink does not seem to be motivated by the hope of shared gaiety. His attitude in sexual aims is so self-centered as to give the impression that even when carrying out intercourse with women he is essentially solitary, isolated in evaluations so immature that what satisfaction he achieves must be in concepts of a phallic damaging and despoiling of the female with simultaneous reassurances to puerile concepts of his own virility. Such confusing and fragmentary achievement, common enough in a groping boy of thirteen, is a poor and pathologic substitute for fulfillment compatible with deep personality integration and is inadequate for one even remotely as near adult as what is implied by this man's outer surface.

His lack of taste and judgment in human relationships seems inconsistent with his opportunity to learn and with his ability to learn in other modes of knowing where such values and meanings do not enter. His apparent hypocrisy is probably not a conscious element of behavior. At least he is unaware of how it would seem to others, even if he assumed all the facts were known to them. It has, perhaps, never occurred to him that there might be people in the world who had other fundamental aims than his own dominant aim to drop the disguise in which he has acted his part perhaps not too comfortably during the week, and plunge into what I would call activity more representative of perverse or disintegrative drives, of aims at sharp variance with everything his outer self seems to represent.

I am well aware that many basic impulses appear in forms not socially acceptable, that they might be called immoral, vulgar, or criminal or be described by other unpleasant words. The person here discussed, when seen without his mask, seems not to be directed in any consistent and purposive scheme by these socially unacceptable tendencies but largely to blunder about at their behest. In his outer front he functions in accordance with all the proprieties, large and small, but here the reality is thin and personal participation halfhearted. He is somewhat like a small boy who succeeds in maintaining decorum and even in getting a good mark for conduct while in the schoolroom under teacher's watchful eye. Though he looks attentive, he is only shrewdly compromising, biding his time to get at what is to him more important. When the bell rings and he escapes from what he finds to be an artificial situation, an area of formalities and polite pretenses, he becomes natural and plays in accordance with what he takes to be the actual rules and real aims of existence.

The small schoolboy learns eventually to reconcile what the classroom represented and what he sought in his hours of play. He finds in his work responsibilities and ways of celebrating much that is compatible, a core at least, that he can integrate into constructive, self-fulfilling, and, on the whole, harmonious expression of basic impulses.

In such a man as the one we are considering, little harmony of this sort appears. Unlike those presented as clinical psychopaths, he has learned to carry out the formalities rather consistently and appears as actually living in a constructive and socially adapted pattern. Actually this is a surface activity, a sort of ritual in which not much of himself enters, For his more natural and inwardly accepted impulses he has found little reconcilable with what he gives lip service to. So he must turn to patterns of behavior so immature and (subjectively) chaotic that they mock and deny all that his surface affirms.

The outer layers of socially acceptable functioning extend little deeper into affect than any other exercise empty of all but formality. He has apparently learned to carry out a lip service in matters that he finds unreal and tedious and to take pride in how well this is performed. As an alternative to the barren channels of formality, the inner man finds for the more valid fulfillment of real impulse only pathways or outlets that sharply deviate from the surface channels, that cannot in any way be integrated with them, and that in themselves remain relatively archaic, poorly organized, undirected toward any mature goal, and socially regressive or self destructive.

It is confusing to interpret such a personality in terms of bad and good. From a psychiatric viewpoint, at least, such aspects of a maladjusted human being cannot be assessed authoritatively.

Years after the incidents recorded in this report, some news of the good doctor was received which I believe would stand as "Paradox in Paradise." It was brought to the young psychiatrist who had accompanied Dr. _____ during the spree just cited by an earnest, middle-aged lady with a strong penchant for talking about psychology and psychiatry and psychoanalysis, about anything containing the prefix psyche for that matter. Striking at once for her hearer's closest interests, she began to talk about a wonderful lecture she had recently heard in a distant town at some woman's club or literary society which was fostering the cause of mental hygiene.

The lecturer was marvelous, she insisted. He stirred up such enthusiasm that half the ladies present had begun to study psychology. And his subject! He talked about the queerest people! They were not exactly insane, but they really did the most fantastic things! They were even harder to understand than lunatics themselves! But the lecturer understood them, though he confessed in all modesty that some points about them were a puzzle even to one of his own experience. He was a most impressive person - so poised and authoritative, yet always quiet-spoken. He was such an intellectual person. A man of wide and profound culture. And such a gentleman!

"I declare, I believe half of the women in our club wished they could exchange roles with his wife! With all that grasp of psychology, just imagine what a husband he must be!"

She would like to learn more about these people ... psychopathic personalities or psychopaths the doctor had called them. And the doctor's name ... She uttered it in hushed tones of admiration.
 
Thank you very much, Laura, for this info. I was really confused by this book, especially after reading other info on narcissism or psychopathy. Lot of things in this book prompted me to conclude that his research biased by his own "narcissistic"/ psychopathic (?) point of view (still learning to discernment though). For example, he calls victims or survivors of narcissistic families as inverted narcissists (therefore claiming that there is no hope for cure because of already existing pathological traits). And this is at odds with all I've read previously on the issue. What strikes me most, is his "doomed and sadistic attitude of tormented monster", reminded me Caliban from Shakespeare's Tempest...

I'll try to look for additional info about him.
 
In this regard, check out Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power. There was a chilling piece in The New Yorker (nov. 6) about this. Many in the hip-hop community see this book as their Bible. Literally. They quote people like 50 Cent saying that this guide to psyhopathic power climbing is divinely inspired. Well I guess we know what god they are talking about.

Laura said:
This is spooky:
"There is some evidence to suggest that some judges, lawyers and CEOs do rank high on the psychopathy score," said Goldstein. "Psychopaths can't be treated -- that is the prevailing thinking -- but I have not seen a single case that says they can't be rehabilitated."
That is to say that being a judge, lawyer or CEO is evidence that a psychopath is okay????

Okay, so now we know that they are going to start coming right out and admitting to being psychopaths and promoting the idea that it is okay, or even better to be one. You know, the "genetic superman."

That is, I believe, the idea of Christopher Hyatt who wrote "The Psychopath's Bible."

We're in for a rough ride.
 
Someone at Robert Greene's website - revealingly and psychopathically named "Power, Seduction, and War" - scanned the New Yorker article and put it up:

http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/images/fresh_prince.PDF

For those not familiar with Greene's book, a listing of the 48 "Laws" of Power (minus the commentaries, interpretations, judgments, and multiple citations from the "classics" of power, assembled in his book in a fashion which obviously attempts to mimic the structure -- but, alas, not the spirit -- of the I Ching) can be found at:

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm

There is considerable comment online about this New Yorker article. One comment, interestingly enough, is by a Chris Lee from the Los Angeles Times, who mentions that he wrote an article (unacknowledged, ay there's the rub!) on the same topic, back on July 12th of this year. He makes a pretty good case.

Chris Lee's e-mail to the New Yorker author Nick Baumgartner (found on a blog named "Gawker") here:

http://www.gawker.com/news/new-york...to-lat-douchebag-machiavelli-story-214353.php

Chris Lee's LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...2,0,5503064,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 
Thanks, a.saccus!

That summary in the second link is really helpful. Who wants to wade through the whole odious book.

The value of reading this, though, is that it helps us understand how the enemy works. Some examples:

Robert Greene said:
Law 7

Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

Law 12

Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim

One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift - a Trojan horse - will serve the same purpose.


Law 14

Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy

Knowing about your rival is critical. Use spies to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. Better still: Play the spy yourself. In polite social encounters, learn to probe. Ask indirect questions to get people to reveal their weaknesses and intentions. There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying.

Law 15

Crush your Enemy Totally

All great leaders since Moses have known that a feared enemy must be crushed completely. (Sometimes they have learned this the hard way.) If one ember is left alight, no matter how dimly it smolders, a fire will eventually break out. More is lost through stopping halfway than through total annihilation: The enemy will recover, and will seek revenge. Crush him, not only in body but in spirit.

Law 17

Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability

Humans are creatures of habit with an insatiable need to see familiarity in other people's actions. Your predictability gives them a sense of control. Turn the tables: Be deliberately unpredictable. Behavior that seems to have no consistency or purpose will keep them off-balance, and they will wear themselves out trying to explain your moves. Taken to an extreme, this strategy can intimidate and terrorize.


Law 32

Play to People's Fantasies

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes for disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

Law 33

Discover Each Man's Thumbscrew

Everyone has a weakness, a gap in the castle wall. That weakness is usual y an insecurity, an uncontrollable emotion or need; it can also be a small secret pleasure. Either way, once found, it is a thumbscrew you can turn to your advantage.
It just goes on and on, but you get the idea.

a.saccus said:
Someone at Robert Greene's website - revealingly and psychopathically named "Power, Seduction, and War" - scanned the New Yorker article and put it up:

http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/images/fresh_prince.PDF

For those not familiar with Greene's book, a listing of the 48 "Laws" of Power (minus the commentaries, interpretations, judgments, and multiple citations from the "classics" of power, assembled in his book in a fashion which obviously attempts to mimic the structure -- but, alas, not the spirit -- of the I Ching) can be found at:

http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm

There is considerable comment online about this New Yorker article. One comment, interestingly enough, is by a Chris Lee from the Los Angeles Times, who mentions that he wrote an article (unacknowledged, ay there's the rub!) on the same topic, back on July 12th of this year. He makes a pretty good case.

Chris Lee's e-mail to the New Yorker author Nick Baumgartner (found on a blog named "Gawker") here:

http://www.gawker.com/news/new-york...to-lat-douchebag-machiavelli-story-214353.php

Chris Lee's LA Times article:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...2,0,5503064,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
 
sounds like the Ferrengi rules of acquisition (to any non-trekkies, it's a star-trek thing. again :rolleyes:)
 
sleepyvinny said:
sounds like the Ferrengi rules of acquisition (to any non-trekkies, it's a star-trek thing. again :rolleyes:)
Wow...my Boss must use this as his personal guide. Maybe he is a Ferrengi! :)

Amazing that there is so much on psychopath behaviour and they STILL manage to operate in society and wreck so many lives...what are we to do to protect ourselves except read this type of thing and get knowledge-and then USE IT.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom