Raine, Samenow, Fallon: Neuropsychology & The Work

[Altair]

Here's a thought experiment fwiw. Supposing one moment you're kinda deep in thought, maybe pondering on something with deeper meaning or something along those lines. Who is to say that you might not be making a connection with yourself in the past (or future) without you really being conscious of it and 'yourself in the past' is at that very moment pondering things too, where both future and past selves co-exist and are communicating to each other at that same 'eternal moment' or something like that? Then you send knowledge thru that connection to your past self (all of which is happening NOW) and your past self in some way picks up on it (without really being fully conscious of what's going on) and in that eternal moment your past self is more free to make a choice of possible futures that, with the application of your will, unites the past and future points together for a moment so that a path opens up that can send the you in the past more in the direction of where you are now which is connected to this group and the other selves in the group who are all sharing knowledge, understanding, experiences and collective research. So in a way it's not only you in the present who is communicating to your past self but it's also, in a sense, this entire group communicating to your past self because your present self is participating with this group and the other selves in it all of whom are exchanging information. OK, I'll stop here. It's just a working hypothesis (fwiw) and it's probably far more complex then the way I just outlined (assuming there's any validity to it) but I often wonder if, sometimes, it can be kinda like the way I just described in these 'eternal moments.' :)

That's very interesting. So our "tribal unit" by getting bigger and stronger can attract (as a sort of growing gravity center) our past selves and is itself attracted by our even more bigger and stronger "tribal unit" from the future which in its turn attracted by other bigger "gravity center" and so on. This reminds me of this C's quote:

Q: Okay, if it can be a step forward, the main question that we don't know the answer to is: what is classical? Gravity or consciousness or something else? What? Or, perhaps everything is classical...

A: Classical negates consciousness, regarding the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather than being interfaced with the rest of creation at all levels of density and all dimensions, which is of course, the case. Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality, physical and ethereal. Nothing would exist without consciousness to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other. In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd density states and similar manifestations.

 

[Altair]

I think it would be useful to post here the list of thinking errors decribed by Samenow in his books. They were already shared here but only as an attached PDF file.


THINKING ERRORS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE CRIMINAL
(Yochelson and Samenow’s “The Criminal Personality”)

1. Energy – The criminal is extremely energetic. His or her high level of mental activity is directed to a flow of ideas as to what would make life more interesting and exciting.

2. Fear – Fears in the criminal are widespread, persistent, and intense; especially fears of being caught for something, fear of injury or death, and fear of a putdown.

3. Zero State – This is the periodic experience of oneself as being nothing, “a zero”; a feeling of absolute worthlessness, hopelessness, and futility.

4. Anger – Anger is a basic part of the criminal’s way of life. He or she responds angrily to anything interpreted as opposing what he or she wants. Anger is, for the criminal, a major way of controlling people and situations.

5. Pride – Criminal pride is an extreme high evaluation of oneself. It is the idea that one is better than others, even when this is clearly not the case. Criminal pride preserves his or her rigid self-image as a powerful, totally self-determining person.

6. The Power Thrust – Criminals need control and power over others. The greatest power excitement is doing the forbidden and getting away with it. The need for power, control, and dominance shows in all areas of their lives. The occasions when criminals appear to show an interest in a responsible activity are generally opportunities for criminals to exercise power and control.

7. Sentimentality – Criminals are often excessively sentimental about their mothers, old people, invalids, animals, babies, their love attachments, and plans for the future

8. Religion – Criminals use religion to support their way of thinking and their criminality. Their religious ideas are usually very literal and concrete. Religion (like sentimentality) does not consistently deter criminal thinking or actions, but does support the criminal’s self-image as a good and decent person.

9. Concrete Thinking – Criminals tend to think in terms of particular objects and events, rather than general and abstract concepts.

10. Fragmentation – This is a very basic feature of the criminal personality. It refers to radical fluctuations in the criminal’s mental state that occur within relatively short periods of time. There is a pattern of starting something, and then changing one’s mind. Criminals will make commitments with sincerity and great feeling, and then break these commitments within the hour. They may feel sentimental love for their children, and then take their money to buy drugs. Their personality is a collection of distinct, isolated, and contradictory fragments.

11. Uniqueness – Criminals emphasize their total difference from other people. They feel themselves to be special, "one of a kind".

12. Perfectionism – Criminal’s have extreme standards of perfection, although he or she applies theses standards sporadically and inconsistently.

13. Suggestibility – Criminals are (1) very suggestible with respect to any behavior that leads to what they want; (2) very resistant to suggestion toward responsible thinking and behavior.

14. The Loner – Criminals lead a private, secretive life; one against the world (including fellow criminals). They feel themselves to be apart from others, even if outwardly they are active and gregarious.

15. Sexuality – Criminals have plenty of sexual experience, but little in the way of sensual gratification or competence in performance. Conquest is essential, and a partner is regarded as a possession.

16. Lying – Criminal’s lying is a way of life. Lying is incorporated into his or her basic make up and feeds other criminal patterns. More common than premeditated lying, is habitual lying, which becomes automatic. The criminal defines reality with his or her lies, and so maintains control.

17. The Closed Channel – In treatment, an open channel of communication requires disclosure, receptivity, and self-criticism. Instead, the unchanged criminal is secretive, has a closed mind, and is self-righteous. If therapy for the criminal is to be effective, an open channel between the criminal and his or her therapist must be established.

18. “I can’t” – Criminals say, “I can’t” to express a refusal to act responsibly. At the same time they believe that there is nothing they can’t do if he or she wants to. Criminal’s say, “I can’t” to escape accountability for what he or she does.

19. The Victim Stance – When criminals are held accountable for their irresponsible actions, they blame others and portray themselves as a victim. The world does not give them what they think is essential, so they view themselves as poorly treated and thus a victim.

20. Lack of Time Perspective – Even more than wanting what they want when they want it, criminals demand immediate possession and success. They must be the best, have the best, right now.

21. Failure to Put Oneself in Another’s Position – Criminals demand every consideration and every break for themselves, but rarely stop to think about what other people think, feel, and expect.

22. Failure to Consider Injury to Others – Criminals lives involve extensive injury to those around them. However, they do not view themselves as injuring others. When held accountable, they regard themselves as the injured party.

23. Failure to Assume Obligation – The concept of obligation is foreign to criminal thinking. Obligations interfere with what they want to do. Obligation is viewed as a position of weakness and vulnerability to other’s control. Obligations are irritating to the criminal, and if pressed, he or she will respond with resentment and anger.

24. Failure to Assume Responsible Initiatives – The criminal declines to take responsible initiatives because (1) responsible initiatives fail to provide the excitement and power thrust of forbidden activities, (2) they do not provide a guarantee of success and triumph, and (3) they are often afraid that accepting responsible tasks will expose their lack of knowledge and ineptness.

25. Ownership – When criminals want something that belongs to someone else, it is as good as theirs. “Belonging” is established in their minds, in the sense that they feel perfectly justified in getting their way.
Criminals consider themselves decent people with the right to do whatever suits their purpose. They view the world as their oyster and view people as pawns or checkers, waiting to be dealt with as they wish. This thinking is habitual and without malice.

26. Fear of Fear – Criminals are fearful of fear and contemptuous of fear. When they discern fear in others, they point it out scorn it, and exploit it. When fear occurs in them, it is a put-down, destroying their self-esteem. This applies also to the many states that denote degrees of fear- doubt, concern, apprehension, and anxiety. They deny these in themselves but when they occur in others, the criminal is ready to pounce.

27. Lack of Trust – Although criminals do not trust others, they demand that others trust them. There are times when their trust of others is sincere, but this is only one of the many fragments of their personalities. It does not last.

28. Refusal to Be Dependant – Like anyone else, criminals depend on other people for some things in life. However, they do not see themselves this way. They fail to believe that a degree of independence is a necessary part of existence. To themselves, dependence is a weakness; lt would render them vulnerable.

29. Lack of Interest in Responsible Performance – Criminals are not interested in responsible tasks that don’t offer immediate excitement. They find responsibility boring. When they do become interested in a responsible project their interest is short-lived, unless they feel the excitement of being a conspicuous success.

30. Pretentiousness – Criminals do little to achieve, but carry tremendously inflated ideas about their capacities. They are, or will be the best, never that they will do their best. They are right and others are wrong, “I usually get mad... if I hear somebody say anything wrong. I usually try to set them straight.” When confined they regard themselves as more knowledgeable than prison staff and seize every opportunity to teach others.

31. Failure to Make an Effort to Endure Adversity – “Effort” refers to doing things that are contrary to what one prefers to do. In this sense, criminals expend little effort, though they may expend tremendous energy doing what they want to do. They refuse to endure the adversity of responsible living. The main adversity to criminals is failure to be a big shot. Adversity is anything that is not going their way. Criminals escape from “adversity” into criminal thought action, which is exciting.

32. Poor Decision Making for Responsible Living – In important personal decisions there is no sound reasoning, fact-finding, consideration of costs, or options. Criminals are reluctant to ask a question about non-criminal activities, because they view it as a put–down to reveal their ignorance. If their pretensions and expectations are controverted by the facts, they do not want to hear them.

33. Corrosion and Cutoff - Criminals may be deterred from criminal activity by a sense of conscience, a sincere wish to change and by sentimental, religious, or humanitarian feeling, as well as, by fear of getting caught. Criminals overcome these deterrents to their criminality by the processes of corrosion and cutoff.
Corrosion – A mental process in which deterrents are slowly eliminated until the desire to commit a criminal act outweighs the deterrent factors. This is criminal scheming. In this process a criminal’s sentiments, ideals and fears gradually give way to the desire for a criminal activity.
Cutoff – A mental process that eliminates deterrents from consideration completely and instantaneously. The gradual process of corrosion is completed by the final cutoff of fear and other deterrents to crime. Cutoff is a mental process that produces fragmentation (Number 10). Criminals radically move instantaneously from one mental state to another.

34. Building Up the Opinion of Oneself as a Good Person – Criminals believe that they are good and decent people. They reject the thought that oneself is a criminal. Performing sentimental acts towards others enhances the criminal’s view of oneself as good. The image of themselves as good people gives them, in turn, a license for more crime, and postpones the recurrence of the zero state.

35. Deferment – Criminals defer or “put things off” in three distinct areas. (1) They carry with them the idea of an ultimate crime, the “big score,” but defers enacting it. (2) They have the idea that one day they will quit crime, go straight and settle down, but that day is constantly deferred. (3) They have a habit of deferring the minor routine responsibilities of life – paying a bill, writing a letter, filing a tax return.

36. Super optimism – A criminal’s mind works in such a way that a possibility or an assumption is an accomplished fact--an idea is a reality. If someone tells the criminal “maybe” he regards it as a promise. Anything that he or she decides to do is as good as done. The criminal uses cutoff to eliminate fear and doubt. The result is that as he or she approaches a criminal activity; the state of absolute confidence is reached. Superoptimistic, there is not a doubt in his mind. Similarity, if he does decide to become a responsible person, he is Superoptimistic of his or her success. Once this decision is made, the criminal will believe that change has already accrued.

 

[genero81]

This sort of universal need to think of oneself as a good person despite the mental gymnastics required by some of the more egregious types of criminals is a bit of a head scratcher. Almost like it's an inherent human psychological imperative or something.

 

[Balance]

Exactly. And this is one of the clearest and most practical approaches we've seen so far. You could say that Samenow makes The Work simple and easy to understand and practice.

I guess that, in a sense, we all have somewhat "criminal minds" until we wake up and understand our machine and take charge of it. These books enable us to become the master of the coach instead of just allowing it to be driven willy nilly by a drunk driver and a poorly disciplined horse!

Just like scene from Matrix where Morpheus explains to Neo what is truly Matrix...only with one interesting addition:
- If we do not cleanse our 'machine' aka. catch and dissolve thinking errors and wrong emotional beliefs, we can and we will be used as vectors of attack on ourselves or on other people. We can in any given time, depending on the external/internal stimuli of various situations, become Mr. Smith, just like anyone else. As I said, this is always possible if we continue to think in habitual and as Lobaczewski says, natural language/patterns.

Morpheus: This means that anyone that we haven't unplugged is potentially an agent. Inside the Matrix they are everyone and they are no one.
{ Including ourselves }

Certain excerpt from PP came to my mind when I thought about these thinking errors and how they relate to 'thinking in natural language/patterns', as Lobaczewski says:

The second chapter sketched the human instinctive substratum’s role in our personality development, the formation of the natural world view, and societal links and structures. We also indicated that our social, psychological, and moral concepts, as well as our natural forms of reaction, are not adequate for every situation with which life confronts us. We generally wind up hurting someone if we act according to our natural concepts and reactive archetypes in situations which seem to be appropriate to our imaginings, although they are in fact essentially different. As a rule, such different situations allowing para-appropriate reactions occur because some pathological factor difficult to understand has entered the picture. Thus, the practical value of our natural world view generally ends where psychopathology begins.

Familiarity with this common weakness of human nature and the normal person’s “naïveté” is part of the specific knowledge we find in many psychopathic individuals, as well some characteropaths. Spellbinders of various schools attempt to provoke such para-appropriate reactions from other people in the name of their specific goals, or in the service of their reigning ideologies. That hard-to-understand pathological factor is located within the spellbinder himself.

At first, I could not understand what he meant by 'natural world view', but after quotes summary Altair provided and active real-life examples of people around me, I started having glimpses of understanding what he wanted to convey here.
Actually, glimpses occurred when I realized how behavior and thinking patterns, full of unrealistic assumptions, logic flaws and "good/protective" intentions, spilled on my girlfriend by her parents/relatives - road to hell is paved with good intentions. I wold add: 'but muddled with thinking errors and wrong emotional beliefs'.

Thus, the practical value of our natural world view generally ends where psychopathology begins

Because at any given time we can become Mr. Smith/Vector of Attack if we do not understand and act against thinking errors.

(btw. When I say 'vector of attack' I mean whole spectrum of various negative behavior toward ourselves or others induced by thinking errors, like being offended when objective situation is not offensive towards you, being passive/inert when activity is needed, procrastination over conscious work, emotionally offending others, not understanding needs of others, being passive/inert when really offended for sake of not ruining the relations, egoistic/egotistic, fear of abandonment etc. etc. etc.)

 

[SMM]

Re: Raine's Anatomy of Violence & Psychopathy

Thank you for sharing a summary of this book, Altair! :)

A rather informative look into how different factors, such as biological, genetic and social, affect future expressions of behaviour.

I shall add this to my reading list. How have others compared the information so far to the book Character Disturbance, or Inside the Criminal Mind , to cite 2 out of a number of examples?

Anatomy of Violence deals mostly with serial killers, sex offenders and so on. If you want to know more about more common types of psychos you can encounter in the everyday life, Character Disturbance is a must read. I haven't read Inside the Criminal Mind yet.

Note that this book was recommended as a part of series of books which should be read in a certain order. You may want to check these threads:

Collingwood's Idea of History & Speculum Mentis
Hyperdimensional Politics

Is this the list you refer to, Altair?

I am currently reading The Idea of History and making my way through the threads mentioned. I listened to Inside the Criminal Mind on Audible just before the winter holidays and plan to read it also. Speculum Mentis is next after this one].

So, it's sort of on a spectrum from common types of psychos to more serious cases. Character Disturbance, although at times uneasy read, I thought a very insightful book. Thank you :)

 

[fabric]

I think it would be useful to post here the list of thinking errors decribed by Samenow in his books. They were already shared here but only as an attached PDF file.

Thanks Altair. On that note, I also found his analyses in The Myth of the Out of Character Crime helpful too. He describes the situation and lists thinking errors that apply to it. Here are some excerpts:

Richard is on the phone with Tanya, his ex-wife. He is screaming because she is late returning the children to him. Tanya responds by cursing a blue streak. Their two young children are cowering in the hallway while overhearing their mother’s part of the conversation. She slams down the phone and yells at them to hurry and get into the car, meanwhile denouncing their dad as a first class jerk. Once the children are in, she speeds off. They arrive at Richard’s and are greeted by his furiously threatening Tanya that he will sue her for contempt of the court order that specifies visitation hours. The errors in thinking are as follows:

• Richard is assuming that his ex-wife is being late intentionally just to provoke him
• Richard is overreacting to the lateness by interpreting it personally as a deliberate putdown
• Both Richard and Tanya are using anger to control the other
• Both parents seem oblivious to the impact of their behavior on their children who are the innocent victims.

{The bolded in particular are very common things. It's easy to assume someone is doing something on purpose just to make you angry. Yes, it can be true in some cases but not always. It's also easy to take things personally when in reality nothing in particular was meant by it.}

Profligate spending resulting in substantial debt is irresponsible. It is a consequence of thinking errors that include the following:

• Thinking “I want it; I must have it now”
• Failure to ascertain facts, weigh alternatives (e.g., comparison shop), and make more responsible decisions
• Failure to establish priorities and plan ahead while delaying gratification
• Failure to consider potential consequences to others


Anna’s shooting of her husband was extremely baffling to everyone, even those who thought they knew her well. She had no criminal record. She was known to be calm and easy going , newver violent. However, through hours of probing I was able to reconstruct her mental life, to unmask who Anna truly was. I found the following thinking errors to be characteristic of her day to day functioning:

• A focus on herself to the exclusion of considering the impact on even the people closest to her, her children and husband
• Deceptiveness to cover up wrongdoing
• A knowledge of what was right and wrong, but eliminating such considerations in order to do what she found exciting
• Deceptiveness (lies of omission and commission)
• Creating problems for others, then blaming them for her own wrongdoing
• Concocting rationalizations for her own conduct when she was held accountable
• An ability to shut off from awareness considerations of conscience long enough to do what she wanted
• Dealing with adversity by fantasizing physically harming then killing her husband whom she regarded as the source of her difficulties


As I interviewed these two men [Larry and Fred], numerous errors in thinking became evident:

• Unrealistic expectations of themselves and other people
• A failure to plan long range
• Hypersensitivity when they felt slighted by others
• Self-centeredness to a point that they seldom considered the impact of their behavior on others


In addition to the thinking errors of uniqueness and irresistibility, other thinking errors played a role in the criminal behavior of Stuart and Mark including:

• Trying to control others
• A failure to put oneself in the place of other people
• Unrealistic expectations


During my evaluation, Wally revealed many errors in thinking. He regarded himself as the only suitable parent for Kenny. (There was no evidence that Diane was a bad parent). He demanded that others affirm that view, especially the court. Among other thinking errors were the following:

• A failure to deal with adversity in a constructive manner, instead of fantasizing about and then killing the person whom he saw as the source of his problems
• Assuming without facts that the court would rule against him
• Blaming other people for difficulties that he created or contributed to
• Failure to take a long range view of the situation, which would entail mounting a persuasive court case rather than taking matters into his own hands

Some that stood out to are: Unrealistic expectations (of themselves and others), blaming others/making excuses and assuming without facts. Though there are many that need to be kept an eye on or dealt with, those 3 are ones that if you can get a good grasp on, they would be an great foundation to work with in dealing other errors. OSIT.

 

[Altair]

Re: Raine's Anatomy of Violence & Psychopathy

Is this the list you refer to, Altair?

Yes, this is the list I was referring to.

 

[Skyalmian]

Thing is, I think the people who need it most aren't reading it or applying its lessons properly

That unfortunately seems to be a norm, not an exception. (In general. In most cases.) And letting go of that hoping / wishing / wanting (a type of expectation) may be the only way to go...

 

[T.C.]

Thing is, I think the people who need it most aren't reading it or applying its lessons properly

That unfortunately seems to be a norm, not an exception. (In general. In most cases.) And letting go of that hoping / wishing / wanting (a type of expectation) may be the only way to go...

I just think it's a massive shame. I think people who haven't read Samenow's work by now haven't got a clue how huge it is in terms of the Work.

But they probably won't even see this post either

 

[Altair]

Here are some interesting quotes from The Myth of the Out of Character Crime by Samenow grouped by chapters.

Thinking errors as a key to character

Behavior is the direct result of the way a person thinks...

As a psychologist working in the area of criminal behavior, I have found that thinking errors are causal in every case of criminal conduct.

For a self-absorbed person who sees himself as the center of the universe, disregard for the impact of his behavior on other people is a pattern, and thus endemic to his way of life. What do I mean by an error in thinking? From the standpoint of the individual doing the thinking, he is not making an error. He's just going about living his life. His thoughts are his thoughts, and they form the basis for what he says and does. The error is a flaw in the thought process that usually results in behavior that injures or, at the very least, inconveniences others. The more extensive the pattern of an error of thinking, the greater the injury.

Lies that seem to make no sense actually do have a purpose once you understand the mentality of the chronic liar. From his vantage point, lying is exciting. By lying, he preserves a view of himself as an individual who can easily outsmart others. Pulling the wool over people's eyes is exciting and enhances his sense of power. The chronic liar has victims, especially people with whom he lives and works.

Another example of a thinking error is a person's tendency to procrastinate. From time to time, we all postpone attending to an unpleasant chore or obligation. The consequences of such a delay may be minor... However, combined with other thinking patterns, it may have played a contributory role to the perpetrator's committing a crime.

Another thinking error is making an instant decision that turns out to be costly.

Profligate spending resulting in substantial debt is irresponsible. It is a consequence of thinking errors that include the following:
• Thinking "I want it; I must have it now";
• Failure to ascertain facts, weigh alternatives (e.g., comparison shop), and make a more responsible decision;
• Failure to establish priorities and plan ahead while delaying gratification;
• Failure to consider potential consequences to others.

Realities about the "Out of character" crime

We all suffer loss, disappointment, one hardship or another. Human beings adopt an attitude toward adversity that is consistent with their character. The critical issue is not what happens to a person, but how he chooses to cope with whatever life doles out.

Drugs knock out the fear of consequences and restraints of conscience. What the person thought about but was inhibited from doing, he now does.

The crime does not reside within the bottle, the powder, the syringe, or the pill. The substance brings out whatever tendencies already reside within the user. Others may never have seen the behavior or had any forewarning. There still is precedent for the behavior. A man who kills has most likely been violent before or, innumerable times, has fantasized assaulting others.

Secret controllers

Responsible individuals do not abuse their authority. They are more focused on serving others than being self-serving. Others, dissatisfied with what they have attained by legitimate means, misuse authority entrusted to them and exploit their position for their own self-aggrandizement.

Exercising control over others as a legitimate function of one's position is one thing. Control for the sake of control is an error in thinking in which the person regards interpersonal relationships as arenas for conquests, conquests that are vital to propping up his self-image but which also lead to emotional, financial, or physical casualties.

When the secret controller is confronted by a major threat to his ego, his response may be cataclysmic, appearing completely out of character.

Sociological and psycholgical determinism: road to a dead end

In trying to understand why people commit crimes, it is not just contemporary porary sociologists who have emphasized the role of the social environment. In the nineteenth century, the "positivist school" focused on the importance of social factors as a breeding ground for crime. This emphasis continued through the twentieth century and now into the current century. The conventional wisdom is that if a person grows up in a poor, gang-infested neighborhood where the American dream seems out of reach, turning to crime is an adaptive response (a sociological term). This thinking remains alive and well in some quarters. However, it is just plain wrong and has served as a distraction to understanding and combating crime.

Psychology, psychiatry, social work, and education have long promulgated gated a deterministic view that children enter the world much like unformed lumps of clay. That clay is then molded by the environment, parents being the most influential. However, childrearing is not a one-way way street. From birth, children differ in temperament. Babies differ from one another in their level of activity, alertness, fearfulness, and sociability. A mother or father responds differently to an "easy," cooing, content infant than to a "difficult" or cranky, colicky infant. The child shapes the parent's behavior as well as vice versa.

Many offenders have told me that they were abused by one or both parents. There is a voluminous professional literature ture that asserts that offenders "abuse" others because they were abused as children. A number of problems are inherent in what has been called the "abuse excuse" invoked from time to time in criminal cases. Criminal defendants are not usually truthful. They may claim they were abused when it never occurred. Children respond very differently to abuse when it actually occurs. Reactions include anxiety, social withdrawal, self-blame, blame, and, occasionally, increased aggressiveness. Although adversely affected at the time of their harsh treatment, they turn out to be remarkably ably resilient. Many formerly abused children become stable, law-abiding abiding men and women determined never to inflict upon others the cruel things that were done to them. You don't hear about these individuals uals on the evening news or read about them in the newspaper.

Numerous times, I have discovered that the abuser was not the parent, but the defendant. More than one parent has related that, no matter what she did, she was rejected at every turn by her offspring. Both mothers and fathers remember that devoting more time and attention to the difficult child was to no avail. They were spurned, reviled, and victimized.

In a criminal proceeding, when family members, already under stress, are asked to reconstruct events, they are inclined to focus on the positive and either forget entirely or conceal what is negative. Family members walk a fine line as they are virtually compelled to acknowledge incontrovertible vertible facts of a case, yet strive to preserve a view of the defendant that he is not ill-intentioned, dangerous, or evil.

Interviewing the defendant: the setting

Five well-practiced tactics were in evidence throughout my contact with Michael. It became evident that his intention was to appear compliant ant while trying to conceal evidence that he had resumed his former patterns of behavior. One tactic was Michael's calculating how much he needed to disclose in order to feed me what he thought I wanted to hear. He'd tell part of the truth, but omit the rest. A second tactic was deliberately ately being vague about his activities. Number three was minimizing the seriousness of his conduct. For example, Michael was doing a lot more with former buddies than saying hello and goodbye. Number four was persistent attempts to divert me from touchy matters so that he could avoid revealing anything incriminating. And a fifth tactic was to seize the offensive and criticize other people rather than permit discussion of his activities.

Feeding a person what he thinks the person wants to hear, vagueness, minimization, diversion, and going on the attack are among the tactics by which a defendant attempts to hide information. Deployment of these and other tactics in and of itself provides information in that it reflects how the offender typically copes with others who want to know more than he wants them to know.

The defendant's view of himself or herself as a good person

Among so much new that I learned, perhaps the most astounding finding was that no matter how numerous, bizarre, or gruesome their crimes, every participant in that long term research-treatment treatment study regarded himself as a good person at heart. As one man said, "If I thought of myself as evil, I couldn't live."

I have heard defendants lament what they have done, tearfully acknowledge that they have hurt others, even agree that they deserve punishment. Nonetheless, they regard their crime as an aberration, a mistake, something that just doesn't reflect who they truly are.

To understand this more fully, it is important to know how offenders handle both the fear of consequences and the influence of conscience. The offender not only knows right from wrong, but he is very aware of the consequences that could befall anyone who engages in the type of offense that he is contemplating. He would be perfectly able to tell you that the person could get arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison. If the crime involved physical risk, then injury or even death might result. The offender could relate all of this as it applies to another person. However, when he is actually committing a crime, he has a remarkable capacity to do something psychologically that most of us cannot do and have no need or desire to do. He can shut off consideration of consequences as quickly as you might flip a switch to turn off a light. He is sufficiently ciently vigilant so that enough fear remains for him to look over his shoulder for the police or anyone else who might apprehend him and hold him accountable.

Pretensions

A thinking error crucial to understanding the personality of offenders is their pretentiousness. Many expect to reap the benefits of success without doing the work that is necessary to be successful. They have an inflated self-image, which they expect others to affirm. When that does not happen, they become extremely angry.

Offenders who live in the world of their own pretensions are largely indifferent to others' feelings. They experience frustration and anger when others fail to confirm their view of themselves. The way that this mentality operates is that just thinking something makes it so.

The Self as unique and irresistable

For decades, mental health professionals have promulgated the myth that perpetrators of sex offenders were victims who inflicted upon others what was done to them. This is absurd on the face of it. There is no evidence that most people who were victims of incest, rape, and molestation become victimizers. There are many responses to sexual abuse, among them social withdrawal, depression, guilt and shame, and anxiety. Many victims of sexual abuse resolve not to do to others what was done to them. Although they were affected by what happened, they show a resiliency and live productive lives without victimizing anyone.

This perception of himself as unique and irresistible, and therefore not bound by laws or mores that apply to others, was a critical error in his thinking. The culmination of its expression, sion, along with other thinking errors, resulted in the brutal rape.

"I think; therefore it is"

The thought process of "I think; therefore it is" should not be confused with a psychotic disorder, in which a person is psychologically impaired in differentiating between fantasy and reality. Mary held basic premises about who she was and what she was therefore entitled to. When these thoughts collided with reality, she characteristically blamed other people for treating her unfairly. Most frequently, she faulted the people with whom she associated most closely and on a daily basis, namely her husband band or work colleagues. Seldom did it occur to her that she played a major role in creating circumstances that led to her own unhappiness. From previous setbacks, she had learned virtually nothing. When Mary experienced a wound to her inflated self-image, she responded by branding ing people who thwarted her as ignorant, insensitive, disagreeable, or uncultured.

The unimportance of feelings

In my forensic evaluations, I find that focusing on feelings contributes little to my understanding of the offender's character. Emotions are generated by thoughts. When a person speaks about being depressed, it is important for me to know what thoughts are producing this emotional state.

Mental health professionals frequently emphasize helping clients "get in touch with their feelings" and express them. During forensic evaluations, I have found that if I were to focus on feelings, I would land in a bed of quicksand from which it would be hard to extricate myself. Offenders use their feelings to justify and explain anything and everything. They also tend to describe feelings as though they are external to themselves and not at all subject to their control. Some offenders go a step further and try to enlist a mental health professional to embark upon an archaeological expedition to delve into their personal histories and thereby discover the source or cause of their feelings. It is far more useful to ask the offender in detail about the thinking that gave rise to a particular lar emotion than it is to focus on the emotion itself. Getting lost in the briar patch of feelings is a time-draining diversion from assessment of the offender's character.

The defendant's use of language

In cases discussed thus far, I have highlighted specific thinking errors, with additional errors to be discussed. This is as good a place as any to discuss how the offender's use of language often differs from common usage. I am not referring to street slang or to obscenities he may use. Rather, everyday words have a meaning in line with an offender's view of life. To avoid misinterpreting what offenders say, it is important to realize that the meaning they give to words arises from their worldview. The Larrys and Stuarts of this world not only think differently from people who are basically responsible, but their use of language reflects this difference. Understanding how a person uses even a single word can open up a new vista.

Offenders frequently say they are bored-that "nothing was going on," that they had "nothing to do." Well-intentioned reformers advocate establishing lishing recreational programs and other time occupiers as antidotes to boredom. It would be well worth the cost if more basketball courts, sports leagues, and social programs could ameliorate this boredom that offenders ers complain about. Give a criminal a chance to play basketball, and the result will be a criminal who plays basketball rather than one who doesn't. The thought processes of the person do not change because he has a sport to play! In fact, an offender whom I interviewed told me how bored he was living in a small town. He complained that all there was to do was "just play sports."

When he says he has nothing to do, this is light years away from many of us, who lament that in an entire lifetime there is not sufficient time to do all that we want. "Nothing to do" for a criminal means nothing satisfies his incessant craving for excitement.

When men and women like Mark, Stuart, Mary, and Anna acknowledge edge they have made a mistake, we should not jump to the conclusion that they are owning up to error. When Fred was finally caught for embezzling funds from a public agency, he expressed regret. However, his regret was not for betraying his employer. Mainly, he lamented his carelessness that led to his apprehension.

Having a thin skin: susceptibility to putdowns

Although criminals have an image of themselves as indomitable, unusually clever or slick, and always in control, they also are supersensitive.

When anything happens contrary to the criminal's expectations and demands, he takes it extremely personally. He regards as a "putdown" whatever fails to support his image of himself as a powerful person. Being told what to do is a putdown. Having to ask a question of another person is a putdown because it shows him to be less than omniscient. Having someone disagree is a putdown.

The term "putdown" is not used by criminals. It is a word that is descriptive of a mental process that occurs habitually in the inner life of the individual. If an offender is counting on something to happen, it is a sure bet. Thinking makes it so. Anything that stands in his way constitutes a putdown-a threat to his ego.

The self as the center of the Universe

Criminals seek to preserve an image of themselves as powerful and unique individuals. They care little about the emotions, opinions, dreams, or aspirations of other human beings. Were they to be genuinely interested in other people and demonstrate empathy, they would encounter a great deal that fails to support their exalted opinions of themselves. As I have indicated, these people do not announce their intentions to others. Most seem like anyone else, desiring to have a family and a well-paying job and wanting love and respect from others. However, these individuals are not willing to subordinate what they want to making sacrifices that family life requires. They desire well-paying jobs but may be unwilling to work hard. Attaining legitimate positions of power and prestige does not satisfy them. Demanding love and respect, they are unwilling to do what it takes to merit them. Thinking solely of their self-interest, they consider any means to an end as acceptable. Criminals live as though the world is a giant chessboard, with people being the pawns for them to move about at their whim.

Six tactics used by defendants to control interviews

By now, you know that thinking patterns provide crucial clues to understanding the personalities of people who commit crimes that appear out of character. For most of their lives, these individuals have successfully hidden a great deal of who they are from other people. Their crimes appear out of character in that the behavior is shocking even to those who thought they knew them well.

The six tactics are:
• Diversion
• Feeding others what he thinks they want to hear or what they ought to know
• Attempting to confuse others
• Minimization
• Putting others on the defensive
• Building oneself up while putting others down.

Diversion is a tactic that offenders use in an attempt to shift the focus away from their culpability, usually by focusing on the shortcomings of others.

Attempting to confuse others is a tactic frequently utilized by offenders who want their real motives to remain hidden. Larry

Minimization is a tactic that many people, not just criminals, resort to when they want to avoid owning up to what they have done. Offenders do this so frequently that it becomes automatic and often persuasive.

Putting others on the defensive is a tactic used by a defendant who decides that, rather than talk about himself, he will put his adversary on the spot and make him the subject of the discussion.

Can a person correct thinking errors?

The older we are, the more ingrained habits become. This is certainly the case with errors in thinking. Even if a person is determined to eliminate old patterns, no matter what they are, change seldom happens quickly. If an individual is sufficiently motivated, change is possible. To change any longstanding habit, a person must become convinced that it has been self-destructive and harmful to people whom he cares about. Sometimes people make changes just to get others to stop pressuring them. Such compliance is a token measure and not the same as basic and enduring change.

There are two sources for motivation: external circumstances and internal factors. The first is critical. An extremely negative event, such as an arrest or incarceration, must get the offender's attention so that he understands that, if he continues on the same path, worse consequences eventually will follow. No matter how grim the situation, no threat by an authority or anyone else can compel someone to change against his will. For meaningful and lasting change to occur, the offender eventually must develop motivation within himself to look in the mirror and dislike what he sees. External leverage can assist in bringing him to this point...

During my career, I have worked with many other offenders in the enterprise of helping them change lifelong thinking errors. I help them become aware of what the errors are, to reject them when they occur (i.e., not act on them), to examine the consequences of the thought patterns, and ultimately, to consider what kind of person they want to be. Only three options exist. The first is to continue to live as they have, which invariably results in their harming others and losing their freedom. The second is to change to living responsibly, a way of life they have envied but with which they have had little experience. The third is not to live at all, to commit suicide, which has occurred fleetingly to some. The men and women whom I have written about in this book have mistakenly believed there is another option, to play both sides of the street. This entails maintaining an appearance of living responsibly while getting away with things on the side. In this, they have succeeded, but only to a point. Eventually, they harm others and dig new holes for themselves.

Epilogue

Considering a crime to be "out of character" signifies that we lack information about the personality of the individual. A crime is the result of thought patterns embedded in the personality of the defendant.

...we all make thinking errors from time to time. Who among us has not been self-centered? Who has not been overly sensitive to criticism? Who has not harbored unrealistic expectations? Secret controllers are extreme in these and other thinking errors. Their fundamental premise is that life should revolve around them. They arrogantly gantly believe that others must fulfill their expectations. They hold such an inflated, albeit insecure, opinion of themselves that they perceive even a minor criticism, disappointment, or frustration as a threat to their entire self-worth. These individuals do their utmost to control others, but often such control eludes them. Consequently, they are perpetually dissatisfied and simmer with anger at a world that does not accord them what they believe they deserve. Their behavior is an expression of longstanding, but invisible, errors in thinking. Once that thinking is revealed, it becomes evident that their crimes are very much "in character."

 

[Laura]

Thing is, I think the people who need it most aren't reading it or applying its lessons properly

That unfortunately seems to be a norm, not an exception. (In general. In most cases.) And letting go of that hoping / wishing / wanting (a type of expectation) may be the only way to go...

I just think it's a massive shame. I think people who haven't read Samenow's work by now haven't got a clue how huge it is in terms of the Work.

But they probably won't even see this post either

So true. Many forum members just read threads they have started themselves or which have exciting or tittilating content. Some people just come for the sessions. They don't seem to grok that the sessions LEAD to something and we are all actively working on that something.

 

[Hesper]

[SNIP]Richard is on the phone with Tanya, his ex-wife. He is screaming because she is late returning the children to him. Tanya responds by cursing a blue streak. Their two young children are cowering in the hallway while overhearing their mother’s part of the conversation. She slams down the phone and yells at them to hurry and get into the car, meanwhile denouncing their dad as a first class jerk. Once the children are in, she speeds off. They arrive at Richard’s and are greeted by his furiously threatening Tanya that he will sue her for contempt of the court order that specifies visitation hours. The errors in thinking are as follows:

• Richard is assuming that his ex-wife is being late intentionally just to provoke him
• Richard is overreacting to the lateness by interpreting it personally as a deliberate putdown
• Both Richard and Tanya are using anger to control the other
• Both parents seem oblivious to the impact of their behavior on their children who are the innocent victims.

{The bolded in particular are very common things. It's easy to assume someone is doing something on purpose just to make you angry. Yes, it can be true in some cases but not always. It's also easy to take things personally when in reality nothing in particular was meant by it.}

Reading about this thinking error reminded me of a passage from Todd Tremlin's Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion (p. 75-80). In it he discusses the theoretical mental modules responsible for people seeking agency in the world (beings with desires and beliefs) and for understanding their desires and beliefs without actually having access to them. What results seems to me to be internal (purely mechanical/brain-based) consideration and subsequent reaction, unless taken to the next level through slow and 'higher order' thinking, taking what is implicit in our programs and making them explicit for proving/disproving:

Life today can be tough. Depending on where people live, they face tensions and challenges ranging from family strife, traffic, and tax bills to illness, crime, and armed conflict. Yet the exigencies of modern human society pale in comparison to those faced daily by even the simplest animals. The stakes are rather higher for creatures trying to stay alive than for those attempting to make more money...To you and me the natural world may be filled with beauty, but beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. While a resplendent sunset often stirs the human heart, in the animal kingdom it signals the arrival of a whole new set of dangers.

Our ancestors shared this less romantic view of the natural world....Even as they traveled far down the road of intelligence and began to capitalize on the new forms of defense it enabled, the first humans continued to depend on many of the same cognitive skills that all other animals use to navigate foreboding landscapes filled with enemies, foes, and friends.

It makes sense, then, that one of the most basic and powerful activities of the brain involves the ability to quickly detect other agents in the environment. Agents are not to be confused with objects, which, from the perspectives of both ontology and cognition, are very different things. Objects are all the things that exist but can only respond to the world, if they respond at all, in purely mechanistic ways...Agents, on the other hand, are beings capable of independently and intentionally initiating action on the basis of internal mental states like beliefs and desires. The most obvious intentional agents are animals and people. Lions take down wildebeests because they feel hungry. Women adorn their bodies because it they believe it makes them more appealing.

The capacity to quickly and accurately distinguish between objects and agents in the environment is clearly crucial to survival....Cognitive psychologists have begun to call the mental mechanism responsible for recognizing agents the Agency Detection Device, or ADD. As part of the core architecture of brains, the operation of ADD is evident in infancy. [...]

The propensity of ADD to attribute agency at the slightest provocation has led psychologist Justin Barrett to describe this mental system as "hyperactive" and refer to it instead as the Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device, or HADD (2000). [...]

Our personal elief that agents operate mentalistically is referred to as "theory of mind," and the mental tool responsible for this perception is called the Theory of Mind Mechanism, or ToMM. A complete picture of the nature and significance of agents is the result of ADD working together with ToMM. As ADD examines the objects we encounter, those displaying characteristics of agents activate ToMM, which in turn initiates a rich array of inferences about what agents are like. IT also engages some powerful cognitive skills for interacting with them. As with ADD, ToMM functions rapidly, effortlessly, automatically, and mostly nonconsciously.

Theory of mind is called a "theory" because ToMM appears to operate on the basis of internal assumptions about how minds work (Wellman 1990), assumptions described in the previous chapter as "intuitive psychology." In reality, there is no way to directly access or experience the mental life of another, let alone to prove empirically that minds even exist. Yet everyone - save for a few principled philosophers - believes that they do. [...]

Attributing mental states to others is the best way to understand their actions. Theory of mind doesn't just describe desire, intentions, thoughts, and motives to others; it also assumes that mental states cause their activities. As a result, we all naturally interpret the behaviors of others, as well as lots of events that occur around us, in terms of mental states.

 

[Laura]

Thanks for that connection and quote, Hesper. Yes indeed, it seems that we are sort of wired to assume certain things. That is why it is so important to know and understand our machine. The machine is very good at what it does and, with proper feedback, it gets even better. But with the wrong feedback, or with traumatic experiences, it can go astray and pull us with it.

 

[maxtree]

Thank you Altair for the accurate synopsis of Samenow's work ! I read "Inside the criminal mind" and I am currently almost at the end of "Outside of character".
I am so grateful that Laura directed us to his work and Collingwoods and Raine's.
Ressler will be next: "Whoever fight monsters".

Thanks to Samenow I observe my thinking and look out for thinking errors. Not the easiest excercise !
On the other hand it is interesting to see that I listen more careful to others.

So again Thank you all.

 

[John G]

I think it would be useful to post here the list of thinking errors decribed by Samenow in his books. They were already shared here but only as an attached PDF file.


THINKING ERRORS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE CRIMINAL
(Yochelson and Samenow’s “The Criminal Personality”)

1. Energy – The criminal is extremely energetic. His or her high level of mental activity is directed to a flow of ideas as to what would make life more interesting and exciting.

...

2. Fear – Fears in the criminal are widespread, persistent, and intense; especially fears of being caught for something, fear of injury or death, and fear of a putdown.

...

6. The Power Thrust – Criminals need control and power over others. The greatest power excitement is doing the forbidden and getting away with it. The need for power, control, and dominance shows in all areas of their lives. The occasions when criminals appear to show an interest in a responsible activity are generally opportunities for criminals to exercise power and control.

...

31. Failure to Make an Effort to Endure Adversity – “Effort” refers to doing things that are contrary to what one prefers to do. In this sense, criminals expend little effort, though they may expend tremendous energy doing what they want to do. They refuse to endure the adversity of responsible living. The main adversity to criminals is failure to be a big shot. Adversity is anything that is not going their way. Criminals escape from “adversity” into criminal thought action, which is exciting.

Ideally you would like your excitement to be coming from acting responsibly while doing responsible activities. Unfortunately, the excitement can seem better if it also has you as the "big shot" which often means manipulation that is forbidden in some sense even if not a legal one. Hopefully one can get enough self-esteem and excitement from responsible not manipulative/forbidden activities. It would also eliminate that fear of getting caught in your manipulating game.