Examining The Empathy Trap Book 11

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

The authors continued to focus on dealing with complex family situations and I wanted to give this more attention because it has such strong bearing on so many topics that matter to me and relate to understanding human predators, and the effects of abusive relationships, particularly between caregivers and children, and these translate into useful parallels between the family situations and cultic relationships. 

I have found similarities between Scientology and my experience in that group and the ways that human predators treat children and the more we examine the common ground of these types of relationships the better we can become at both understanding them and also seeing unhealthy aspects of other relationships.

 "Children need to feel wanted, loved and safe; they also need consistency and boundaries. No parent or carer gets it right every time, and everyone has a bad day with their children, but emotional or physical abuse is different. Severe and persistent ill-treatment undermines a child's confidence and self-worth. Trauma survival specialist Judith Herman argues that as long as the target (in this case the child) maintains strong relationships with others, the perpetrator's power is limited; therefore, the sociopath seeks to isolate the child. The sociopath will not only attempt to prohibit communication and material support, but will also try to destroy child's emotional ties to others. When the child is isolated, he increasingly becomes dependent on the sociopath, not only for survival and basic needs but for emotional sustenance. Prolonged confinement in fear and isolation reliably produces a bond of identification between the sociopath and the victim. This is another form of traumatic bonding and may occur between a battered partner and her abuser or between an abused child and an abusive parent." (page 109-110)

This particular aspect of the abusive relationship is quite similar to how Alexandra Stein described the cultic relationship in her book Terror, Love and Brainwashing. Stein described how the cult tries to remove any other relationships that could serve as an escape valve and be a way the cult member could have a method to escape from the cult. It is well worth examining.

 "Adult survivors of childhood abuse often form intense unstable relationships. Some find it very hard to tolerate being alone, but are also extremely wary of others. Terrified of being abandoned on the one hand, and of being dominated on the other, they fluctuate between extremes of submisseveness and rebellion. This has been termed 'sitting duck syndrome'. In the most extreme cases, survivors of childhood abuse may find themselves as involved in abuse of others, either in the role of passive bystander or, more rarely, as a perpetrator."

 (page 110)

This description unfortunately applies to some people who are raised in cults like Scientology. The tragic results include many people who as adults are saddled with difficulties in forming and maintaining relationships. Obviously not everyone has the same outcomes and this is a vital fact. 

The description given by Alexandra Stein regarding attachment theory and cults in Terror, Love and Brainwashing is also useful regarding this issue.

 "Assisting a child in overcoming abuse is a challenge, but children can and do overcome trauma. Helping children make sense of things by listening to them and acting on their behalf when necessary will make a lot of difference to their ability to recover from their childhood traumas. Apathy should not be tolerated by society; and it is part of the problem. A recent example of the way in which apathy itself can form part of the abuse is the sex abuse cases within the Catholic Church which began coming to light in the mid-1980s. The cases involved sexual abuse of minors by priests and received significant media attention. Sadly, cases occurring over many decades have since been reported in numerous countries throughout the world. Much of the scandal focused on members of the church's hierarchy who didn't report allegations of abuse to the civil authorities. In many cases they reassigned those accused to other locations, where they continued to have contact with minors." (page 110-111)

The rampant abuse of children in Scientology and my own experience has convinced me that we really should not tolerate the abuse of children, not even a little bit, not even from our most cherished religious or secular leaders and groups.

Plainly the groups like Scientology and the Catholic Church that hid and protected child abusers, including sexual abusers, should face significant and severe consequences for their part in the abuse of children. They made it possible for abusers to keep abusing children for decades, despite numerous credible accusations of abuse being brought to them, which they squashed while protecting the offenders from prosecution.

They should not be able to merely pay a fine or settlement. They have real people who really conspired to obstruct justice who actually belong in prison. In some cases for the rest of their lives.

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 10

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on dealing with complex family situations.

I wanted to include a bit of this material as it relates to several relevant topics in my mind. It is important for me personally in examining the dynamics of my own home and childhood. It is important for examining the dynamics of cults as they have similar qualities to abusive relationships.

The more I have looked at material on cults and abusive relationships the more overlap I have come to find.

 "It is hard to accept this uncomfortable truth, but sociopaths don't love their children for themselves. Instead they view them as objects of manipulation. A non-sociopathic parent can thus be dealt a double blow at the hands of his or her former partner, and experience secondary trauma (a common term for the stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person) whenever children or other loved ones are involved." (page 103)

 "Being the partner of a sociopathic parent is like living on a minefield. On the whole sociopaths make poor parents. At best, they view their children as prized possessions. At worst, they actively try to corrupt them. In his book Without Conscience, Robert Hare states that sociopaths see children as an inconvenience. This indifference to their welfare takes many forms. They may leave young children alone or in the care of unreliable babysitters or fail to provide them with proper food and clothing. They may demand certain behaviours or accomplishments for their own benefit. They may inflict physical and emotional abuse, or desperately try to corrupt a child through inappropriate or dangerous activities. So, when a sociopath is involved with children, always be on guard."

 (page 103-104)

 "In light of this, the less interaction a sociopath has with his or her children the better, however harsh and unnatural this seems." (page 104)

 "Many children eventually sense that there is no real bond between them and the sociopathic parent but it is, and will continue to be, a confusing and disturbing relationship for them." (page 104)

 "Do not accept into your life anything or anyone that you don't want your children exposed to." (page 104)

 "For children with one or more sociopathic parents it often takes years to come to terms with or understand their situation. Some never come to terms with it, or 'see' the reality of their circumstances. Indeed, in our experience it is not uncommon for children of sociopaths to reach a level of maturity, perhaps middle age, before they gain any proper understanding of their experiences." (page 106)

I had to make it to middle age and work a lot on both learning about psychology, human predators and abusive relationships and work on recovery from Scientology for years to be ready to examine the reality of my childhood. No one wants to realize that they had no parent who loved them and it will never change. 

 

 "In her powerful book The Body Never Lies, Alice Miller notes that the parent or primary carer is to blame for any damage he inflicts upon his child, and must take full responsibility for participation in the abuse. Sociopaths don't own up or take responsibility for the abuse they inflict upon others, but they must be held responsible all the same. And if other adults are involved in some way, albeit in not acting on an accusation of abuse or failing to 'see' the abuse, they must be held accountable for their inaction and negligence. Everyone who turns a blind eye to abuse of a child, is to some extent, blameworthy." (page 107)

Here is a bit of poignant information on many fronts. I am someone who has experienced tremendous regret over hurting others emotionally, physically and psychologically. 

The reality of having harmed others has bothered me and if Alice Miller is correct, that leaves me outside the realm of the sociopaths. It also is useful for children of sociopaths to understand that if they regret doing harm to others they are not sociopaths. Many people who are brought up with one or more sociopathic parents are scared they can be sociopaths too. But the children should not worry about this if they care about the welfare of other people, if they regret when they harm others that is an important thing to focus on. 

People raised in cults similarly have often experienced sociopathic abuse and may worry they are sociopathic. The same facts apply to them.

I used to read about people who were raised by a parent or parents who never loved them and thought a lot of these people were grossly exaggerating. But now I understand that they had to realize the truth about the childhood they experienced and come to terms with the fact that they never had any love from their parents, because I had to face the same harsh truth. 

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 9

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on a variety of topics including harassment and bullying.

 "Harassment is unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual. Bullying is most often characterized as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient."

 (page 81)

 "Bullying is often exacerbated by the fact that some of the victim's peers don't want to lose status by associating with him, or are keen to avoid the risks of being bullied themselves, so increasing the isolation of the person on the receiving end."

 (page 82)

 "If you are experiencing harassment or intimidating behaviour yourself, don't ignore it - most of the time it is unlikely to go away without some kind of action. Don't feel it is your fault, or fear being labelled as a 'troublemaker' for bringing it to the attention of other people and the relevant authorities. People who are involved in harassing behaviour often display it as a form of control and 'superiority' over your life; if you ignore it, this may be seen by the sociopath as a means of success." (page 83)

 "Is it ever advisable to tell someone with the notion that they are sociopathic?

We don't advise you to confront someone with the notion that they are sociopathic, narcissistic, or psychopathic, or for that matter borderline, even if you are absolutely certain they exhibit the traits. Even if the person concerned occasionally appears to be aware that she doesn't react like people around her, sociopaths rarely think badly of themselves. They don't have the same emotional attachment to ideas and concepts that 'normal' people do. However, she may know she is different. Being relatively unemotional, she can be fearless. Often sociopaths use this to their advantage, staying calm when others are afraid. Trying to make them feel remorse, guilt or shame is useless and can encourage them to fake feelings, to go along with the game.

Whether someone knows or is informed that they are sociopathic depends a lot upon their social and cultural background. But nowadays, with the advent of the internet and social media, it must be hard for sociopaths not to get wind of the concept of sociopathy or know something of this phenomenon. And their self-absorbed nature makes it highly likely that many of them have read widely on the issue and even diagnosed themselves. " (page 84)

 "Getting over the experience is not always easy. It can be a battle, difficult and discouraging at times. The good news is that the vast majority of us get there in the end - but recovering from the experience often requires us to challenge the perspectives and rules that have sustained our belief systems and the belief systems of those around us." (page 84)

 "Change requires us to actively engage in the process. We have assets, both internal and external, collectively called recovery capital, which support us in dealing with changing circumstances. Every one of us possesses internal reserves of recovery capital that initiate and sustain our own recovery, but sometimes we need a little help in identifying what we've got. Sometimes to aid the process we also need a change in self-perception, or somehow to 'repair' our identity. " (page 85)

 "Sociopaths like playing games with your emotions, and having access to you after a relationship is over is like letting the game continue." (page 89)

 "Do not get into games with the sociopath by entering into dialogue again." (page 89)

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 8

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on dealing with traumatic memories. Survivors of cultic abuse, abusive relationships and childhood abuse and neglect of a traumatic nature in my opinion have enough in common to be described as trauma survivors. The degree and exact details vary from person to person and we each have a unique experience and unique issues.

The topic of dealing with traumatic memories is a difficult one because often the memories accompany other issues that make recovering or integrating them difficult. If they were not difficult to recover and integrate they would not be traumatic, some experts might say. The memories may prompt unpleasant emotions and thoughts and be unpleasant to re-experience. 

I am going to include recommendations from the authors with the caveat that they recommend these things and in many cases I don't have the education to recommend for or against these practices, so I am sharing their information without necessarily agreeing. It is for your own consideration and judgement.

 "Dealing with traumatic memories

Depression, severe anxiety and fear commonly stem from traumatic memories. People distressed by such memories may be constantly reliving them through nightmares or flashbacks, and may withdraw from their family or social circle in order to avoid exposing themselves to reminders of those memories. They may become physically aggressive, argumentative or moody, causing difficulties in relationships with their family, spouse or partner, and children. Sometimes they resort to substance abuse, drugs or alcohol in order to deal with the anxiety. If symptoms of apathy, impulsive behavior, sleeplessness or irritability persist, the person may want to discuss this with his or her family doctor and to seek the help of a psychotherapist.

The management of traumatic memories is important when treating PTSD. Traumatic memories are stressful and can emotionally overwhelm a person's existing coping mechanisms. When simple objects such as a photograph, or events such as a birthday party, evoke traumatic memories, people often try to remove the unwanted memory from their minds in order to proceed with life, but this approach usually has only limited success. Over time the frequency of these triggers or memory joggers diminishes for most people, and for some the number of intrusive memories diminishes rapidly as the person adjusts to the situation. For others, however, they may continue for decades and interfere with the person's mental, physical and social well-being."

 (page 77-78)

 "Pharmacological methods for erasing traumatic memories are currently being researched, although this raises ethical concerns. The use of drugs to blunt the impact of traumatic memories treats human emotional reactions to life events as a medical issue, which may not necessarily be a good thing and may expose individuals to unnecessary risk. If drug treatments are administered unnecessarily - when for example a person could learn to cope without drugs - the person may needlessly be exposed to side effects. And the loss of painful memories may actually end up causing more harm than good. Painful, frightening or even traumatic memories can serve to teach us to avoid certain situations or experiences. By removing those memories their function in warning and protecting individuals may be lost." (page 78-79)

 "Individuals with PTSD can also become ill with depression. Depression can be treated either with antidepressant medication, or with talking treatments such as counselling or psychotherapy. It is important in such cases, when the symptoms ascribed to PTSD persist, to speak about them openly with someone and get professional help. The important message to take from all this is that by reaching out for support, seeking medical advice and treatment, and developing new coping skills, individuals can at the very least learn to manage effectively the symptoms of PTSD and better still, overcome the problem in time." (page 79)

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 7

The authors next took on post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

I found that this information is crucial to understanding sociopathic abuse, human predators and cults.

It is the road I have been on for over forty years and so, I should learn it well. It is also the extremely important to me to describe it in as much detail as possible, because a lot of people are on it too and many have friends and family on it as well.

 "(Because it has primarily been identified by observing survivors of a specific range of traumatic events such as combat and disaster, the term PTSD fails to capture the consequences of prolonged, repeated trauma such as instances when a person is unable to flee and is under the control of an abuser, as may exist in families where abuse is taking place.)"

 (page 74)

 "PTSD is a severe anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to any event that results in psychological trauma. According to one expert on surviving trauma, Judith Herman, captivity that brings the targeted person into prolonged contact with the perpetrator of the abuse creates a special type of relationship. She defines this as one of coercive control. This is equally true when the individual is rendered captive by physical, economic, social and psychological means, as in the case of battered partners or spouses and abused children.

PTSD itself arises due to deregulation of the fear system. Fear is a necessary emotion at times of danger, and like anger is followed by a stress response - fighting, freezing or fleeing. This survival system depends on our ability to appraise threats in order to initiate survival behaviour. Once the threat or trauma is over, the fear system normally calms down after a few days or weeks. In PTSD this system fails to reset to normal, keeping the sufferer hyper-alert, in the lookout in case the event happens again. This disorder is characterized by involuntary, persistent remembering or reliving of the traumatic event in flashbacks, vivid memories and recurrent dreams. Usually this is accompanied by problems such as depression, substance abuse, and other anxiety disorders. The person may feel emotionally numb, for example feeling detached from others.

PTSD occurs when the trauma inflicted on an individual threatens her psychological integrity and overwhelms her ability to cope. As an effect of psychological trauma, PTSD is more enduring than the more commonly seen fight-or-flight response (also known as acute stress response), and is indicated by symptoms such as flashbacks, sleep problems, difficulty in concentrating and being emotionally labile (moods go up and down: the person is elated one moment, miserable the next). Chronically traumatized people are often hyper-vigilant, anxious and agitated. Over time they may complain not only of insomnia, startle reactions and agitation, but also of numerous other physical symptoms. Tension headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances and abdominal, back or pelvic pain are extremely common. Individuals also frequently complain of tremors, choking sensations or nausea. Repeated trauma appears to intensify the physiological symptoms. " (page 75-76)

 "The clinical literature points to an association between bodily disorders and childhood traumas. Some survivors of prolonged childhood abuse develop severe dissociation, cutting themselves off and becoming detached from their feelings and other people. At the other extreme, one study conducted in 1989 described a process the researchers called 'mini-fragmenting operations, where abused children were deluded into thinking that their abusive parents were good parents'.

Prolonged trauma at the hands of a sociopath may have emotional impacts, such as protracted depression. Here the chronic symptoms of PTSD combine with the symptoms of depression, producing what has been called the survivor triad of insomnia, nightmares and psychosomatic complaints. The humiliated rage of traumatized person adds to the burden. He has been unable to express anger at his perpetrator: to do so would have jeopardized his survival. So even when released from the perpetrator's grip, he continues to be afraid of expressing his anger. Furthermore, the individual often carries a burden of unexpressed anger against all those who remained indifferent and failed to help. Efforts to control this rage may further exacerbate his social withdrawal and paralysis of initiative while occasional outbursts of rage against others may further alienate him and prevent the restoration of relationships. Internalization of rage may result in self-hatred, even thoughts of suicide. Even though major depression is frequently diagnosed in survivors of prolonged abuse, the connection with the preceding trauma is frequently lost. Hence patients are incompletely treated because the traumatic origins of the intractable depression have not been recognized." (page 76-77)

Probably the most common mistake regarding PTSD is the belief that you are exaggerating your situation or trivializing the "real" PTSD that soldiers in combat experience. I had to read a lot of literature on trauma, abuse, human predators and the effects of PTSD to realize that the trauma and effects suffered by people who were abused as children or in cults or in other situations is genuine and it doesn't in any way diminish the term or insult veterans. 

In plain English I am severely fucked up and if you tell me you or someone else have PTSD I won't make the mistake of thinking you are not dealing with serious issues or that I know exactly what you are going through. People are complicated and have all sorts of issues to varying degrees.

That's a polished way to say you might be fucked up too, fucked up in a way like me, or fucked up to a different degree or less fucked up, or not at all. I don't know.

PTSD - It isn't just for soldiers!

I wanted to include all this because with my track record I can check almost every box for every characteristic of PTSD as described here. I also want other survivors of childhood abuse and cultic abuse and abusive relationships of any kind to be able to see the information and see if they have any issues. I am not advocating self diagnosis and treatment, if you want treatment then I have no idea what is the best course of action but I advise that you get the most competent and legitimate medical professionals available. If you just want to explore the topic and read, there are many books on this topic available.

I think PTSD is far more widespread than people commonly believe. Many people who have experienced trauma should get the care they need and a serious evaluation.

I feel a sort of relief in finding that many symptoms that were previously seen as negative character traits are par for the course for people who have experienced trauma and the traits are signs the trauma is there, not a character flaw.

Often people who have experienced trauma end up in a cycle of shame, then fault finding in themselves,  and the double bind of wanting love, recognition, compassion and help in opposition to feelings of overwhelming worthlessness, badness, and shame - and with the shame comes immense feelings of being unworthy of the love, compassion, acceptance and the help you need to escape the shame. So, you don't open up to anyone as you feel undeserving of the help you need. 

One can alternate between shame and rage and depression and feel that relationships are impossible or unsustainable.

The cycle needs something to change to be broken, sometimes, for some people, learning about the cycle is a start at changing it.

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 6

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on coping in the aftermath of a destructive relationship.

 "Witnessing sociopathic abuse

So what should you do if you are aware that sociopathic abuse is taking place?" 

(page 56)

 "Apathy equates to collusion, so turning a blind eye is no option for a person of integrity.

Yet, in reality, many of us do find it hard to get involved. One of the barriers to speaking out is that sociopaths often work on evoking other people's pity."

 (page 56 -57)

 "The best advice is not to listen. In The Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout stresses that while there is still interaction between you and the sociopath, it is best to resist the temptation to join in his games. Trying to outsmart the sociopath or getting into arguments with him reduces you to his level - and distracts you from the task of protecting yourself. It is better to resist a showdown with a sociopath at all costs. In such situations his drive to win sets in. The best way to protect yourself is to avoid him, and refuse any kind of contact or communication. Sociopaths feel no obligation to you or anyone else. To keep a sociopath in your life is therefore to put yourself at risk of harm." (page 57)

 "If total avoidance is out of the question, for instance if the sociopath is someone you work with, limit contact as much as possible. Above all, make the rules of engagement ones that are right for you and then do your utmost to stick to them."

 (page 57)

 "At some point most of us learn we cannot control other people's behaviour. This is important to keep at the forefront of your mind, as is the crucial point that the sociopath's behaviour is not your fault. It is far better to concentrate on your own behaviour and with sorting out your own life than to bother with things you can't change." (page 58)

 "Identifying the problem can seem a mammoth task at first. In the aftermath of sociopathic abuse individuals can feel such an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion that they no longer trust their own judgement. Entering a sociopathic relationship is a one-sided and isolating experience. On exiting a sociopathic relationship the isolation can be magnified as abused person withdraws from social activities and becomes cut off from support. This is often the result of the immense shame abused people feel on account of their disempowerment, and their maltreatment by the sociopath in their lives." (page 59)

I have written quite a bit about the use of anxiety and confusion in Scientology to control people and it fits perfectly with understanding that sociopathic behaviour, whether from an individual or an organization can leave one anxious and confused. 

Next the authors took on a topic that I have to say is deeply relevant to me personally and I think for many ex Scientologists, especially children raised in Scientology, may also apply.

I found the following to be one of the most accurate and spot on descriptions of my personal circumstances as anything I have ever seen.

 "Shame

In our experience, shame is the greatest barrier for individuals trying to move on. Shame and a growing wariness of others can make it hard for such people to open up about the true extent of their unhappy situation. The situation becomes more desperate if earlier attempts to gain understanding have been met with incredulity. Wariness coupled with deep and toxic shame can render the abused person inactive. Children, for instance, often learn from bitter experience that telling someone else about abuse at home can result in negative, even detrimental reactions.

Most of the time shame is a normal and healthy human emotion. A healthy sense of shame keeps our feet on the ground, and reminds us of the boundaries. We are human and we make mistakes. Feeling shame is giving ourselves permission to be human. A healthy amount of shame can deepen our sense of personal power, helping us to recognize our limits and learn to redirect our energies to more fruitful pursuits. But too much shame can be harmful and demoralizing. John Bradshaw, author of Healing the Shame that Binds You, calls this toxic shame and argues that it can become a central part of oneself, leading to profound feelings of isolation. It is internalized emotion that can lead us to feel defective, beyond remedy.

It is not uncommon for people who have experienced the shame and deprivation that goes with having a sociopath in the family to face difficulties in their adult relationships. Individuals who have experienced trauma at the hands of a sociopath in childhood may unwittingly seek out or attract needy and narcissistic types of people in adulthood. Shame in the children of sociopaths can be intense and hard to shake off, for it originates from the trauma of abandonment as a child.

In her powerful book, The Drama of the Gifted Child, Alice Miller describes the notion of abandonment trauma. This type of trauma occurs when damage is caused as a result of something not happening to an individual (for example not feeling loved, nurtured or protected). We can't do justice to Alice Miller's body of work in such a short book as this, but we do recommend those interested to read her work (see 'Further reading and resources'). In essence, being abandoned by a sociopathic parent who is physically present but emotionally absent can leave a child bewildered to the point of despair. In order to develop as healthy human beings, children need to mirror the actions of an adult carer who is both physically and emotionally present. A baby is completely dependent on its parents and the parents'love and care is essential. Denied his or her basic needs, a child must find ways to not be abandoned. Many children in this situation try to reverse the natural order: they take care of their parents, as opposed to the other way round. But this often leads to a paradoxical situation where the child is nevertheless abandoned.

Many children of sociopathic, neglectful parents try to make recompense by becoming caregivers. This can lead to excessive concern with pleasing and paying disproportionate attention to the care of others, at the expense of a proper concentration on oneself. Overwhelmingly, the children or partners of sociopaths tend to put others'needs first. They may feel they deserve the pain and trauma that goes with living with a sociopath; they usually rationalize that, after all, it was they and no one else that got them into this mess. This sort of thinking has a circularity about it, and if not interrupted and eventually terminated may drive a person near crazy. " (page 59-61)

I have written about the fact that I was in Scientology for twenty five years, from the age of 17 to 42, starting probably in 1988 until 2014. I have avoided writing about my life in extreme detail before Scientology for the most part.

To understand how I have been able to have their insight into this particular part of the book I think I simply am going to have to let the cat out of the bag. I have avoided writing about my life before Scientology for a variety of reasons. 

I am a firm believer in the idea that cult expert Margaret Singer, who interviewed over four thousand ex cult members over decades of work, expressed. She believed that cults recruit all kinds of people and that cult members are not especially stupid, gullible, crazy or unusual. They are people who can be lied to, which is all of us.

My life before Scientology is not a story that supports this valid claim, so I have been reluctant to share it, as believers in the idea that cult members are unusual may clamp onto this as if it validates a theory, but one anecdote, one life, is not representative of people who join cults, not by a long shot. 

I wrote My Life Before Scientology after reading this section on shame and felt that I was finally ready. (That is posted at Mockingbird's Nest blog on Scientology and ESMB redux)

It details my childhood and the role that sociopathic abuse and the resulting shame have played in my life.

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 5

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on this from another perspective.

"The effects of gaslighting from the targeted person's point of view

During the process of gaslighting, the targeted person usually goes through some recognizable emotional and psychological states of mind. Psychologist Dr Robin Stern describes three stages those targeted go through: disbelief, defence and depression.

Disbelief

The targeted person's initial reaction to gaslighting behaviour is one of complete disbelief; he cannot believe the sudden change towards him, or that he is being gaslighted. All he knows is that something terribly distressing seems to be happening, but he can't figure out what. Blinded by the sociopath's promises or affections, the targeted person naturally trusts that his friendship or love is returned, but of course, this belief is based upon falsehood. In consequence the sociopath offers no sympathy or support when the target seeks to put the relationship right. Gaslighting doesn't need to be severe in order to have stark effects on the gaslighted person. It can be as subtle as being told 'You are so sensitive ' or having it suggested that you are incapable: for example, 'You can't do that. You'll have to leave it to me.' Even though the targeted person knows on a rational level that these statements are untrue, his confidence is so eroded that he can't trust his own view. In extreme cases, those desperate for reassurance that they're not going mad become very dependent on their abuser for a sense of reality.

Defence

In the early stages of the devaluation phase the targeted person still has the emotional wherewithal to defend himself against the manipulation. However, at some point he is thrown off balance by creeping self-doubt, anxiety and guilt. Becoming bewildered and unable to trust his own instincts or memory, he tends to isolate himself because of the shame he feels. Eventually he is left unable to defend himself from the unbearable gaslighting effect.

One psychological condition that can result is called Stockholm syndrome. This got its name from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, when four bank employees were strapped in dynamite and locked in a vault. Much to their rescuers' surprises, the hostages developed more trust in their captors than in the police who were trying to rescue them. The term was subsequently coined by Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist Nils Bejerot, who was involved in the case. Stockholm syndrome can occur in situations where people find themselves held captive and in fear of their lives - not only thanks to sociopathic abuse but in kidnapping and hostage situations. It refers to the way in which someone in such a situation may bond with his or her captor as a defence mechanism - what is technically known as trauma bonding. In order to cope with the discomfort of living in such madness and chaos, the targeted person - and apaths too if they are involved long enough - cope by rationalizing and excusing the sociopath's behaviour in order to reduce the conflict they are experiencing. Louis de Canonville calls it a 'clever but complicated unconscious' self-preservation strategy.

Depression

By the time someone has been systematically gaslighted, he hardly recognizes himself. In fact many such people become a shadow of their former selves. They begin to feel that they can't do anything right any more, that they don't feel that they can trust their own mind or trust the opinion of others. So they withdraw into a distorted version of what is really taking place. Some escape into a constant low mood or depression. Depression is different from normal sadness - it is worse, as it affects the person's physical health and it goes on for longer. A lot of people who have been gaslit for a sustained period in this way go on to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (see chapter 5 for more on this). This is especially true of children of sociopathic parents.

In the aftermath of sociopathic abuse people may experience an array of responses - shock, disbelief, deep sadness, guilt, shame, anger, fear, loneliness and an array of physical symptoms including panic attacks, flashbacks, anxious thoughts, fatigue and dissociation - although many also express relief at finally knowing what has been going on. Confidence erosion is another symptom that follows gaslighting. Gaslighted individuals live in fear of doing the wrong thing and making their situation even more dangerous. They become more cautious and doubt themselves. This often affects how they make decisions in their life. They commonly ask 'Am I too sensitive?' , 'Why do I attract people like this?' or 'Am I to blame?'

Shame and blame are the hallmarks of gaslighting. The targeted person may become hyper-sensitive after the constant humiliation. He hears countless times from the sociopath and her foot-soldier apaths that he is 'too sensitive', so over time he begins to believe these lies about himself.

Another negative side effect of gaslighting is that the targeted person finds himself always apologizing, even for her very existence. This is, to all intents and purposes, a way of avoiding more conflict with the sociopath. Many children of sociopathic parents have a tendency to do this. It is not an act of politeness. Rather, as Christine Louis de Canonville argues, it is a powerful strategy for staying safe, and a means

 of disarming the sociopath. 

One more knock-on effect that must be faced as a result of having experienced gaslighting is the resulting joylessness, a melancholic view of life. Many people who have experienced the traumatic effects of gaslighting go through such physical and mental tortures that they suffer a personality change. They may end up feeling confused, lonely, frightened and unhappy. But rather than expose their vulnerability they hold on to it and keep their feelings in. Targeted individuals often experience great shame about their situation. When well-meaning friends and family members show concern or ask whether they are OK, they avoid further pain.

Shame in sociopathic abuse is a difficult issue. The shame that a targeted person feels is a normal response to the sense of failure she feels as a result of her inability to protect herself (and her dependents) from abuse. In addition, other people often have a 'blame the victim' mentality or take the attitude that the targeted person should 'just get over it', both of which demoralize the individual concerned. This shame can be interpreted by others as defensiveness, but in reality it is likely that the individual wishes to withdraw and socially isolate herself out of fear and lack of trust of others.

Some people who have been gaslighted also experience difficulty in making decisions. Having to ask permission to do anything, not being allowed to express their own opinion, never being able to win an argument, constantly being chastised and humiliated, contributes to a loss of their autonomy, even their ability to make decisions for themselves. Many individuals recovering from sociopathic abuse adopt 'people pleasing' behaviour as a way of coping and dealing with others. The reason is that, as a defence mechanism, the targeted person has become conditioned to please the sociopath. Sadly, the only person the targeted empath does not set out to please is himself. The behavioural and emotional difficulties that follow abuse at the hands of a sociopath mean that, for the unfortunate few who have endured years of such abuse, life can seem rather hopeless. " (page 51-55)

I included so much for a few reasons. The exact descriptions they gave are so spot on, so accurate and thorough I didn't want to leave anything out. I feel that a lot of ex Scientologists (but certainly not all) got these descriptions and can use the information to reflect on their own lives and additionally the lives of other ex Scientologists. I am offering this so people can see if it is or could be right for them or others they know.

I feel that for myself it is profoundly accurate. I could go on at considerable length and go through it bit by bit but suffice it to say that I can check every box for everything here.

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 4

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

Next the authors took on gaslighting. I have read thirty or so books on psychology and coercive persuasion and was familiar with gaslighting but the authors went to such lengths to elaborate on gaslighting that it led me to some important new conclusions.

I am going to present a good amount of their statements on gaslighting, because the information is so vital to me and necessary to explain my conclusions.

 "The 'gaslighting' effect and how it works

Let's now explain the sociopath's standard mode of operation. According to Martha Stout, sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics." (page 48)

 "Gaslighting is the systemic attempt by one person to erode another's reality. The syndrome gets its name from the 1938 stage play Gas Light (originally known as Angel Street in the USA), and the 1940 and 1944 film adaptations. The 1944 film Gaslight features a murderer who attempts to make his wife doubt her sanity. He uses a variety of tricks to convince her that she is crazy, so she won't be believed when she reports the strange things that are genuinely occurring, including the dimming of the gas lamps in the house (which happens when her husband turns on the normally unused gas lamps in the attic to conduct clandestine activities there). The term has since found its way into clinical and research literature.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented in such a way as to make the target doubt his or her own memory and perception. Psychologists call this, rather incongruously, 'the sociopath's dance'. It may simply involve the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of strange events intended to disorientate the target. In any event event, the effect of gaslighting is to arouse such an extreme sense of anxiety and confusion in the target that he reaches the point where he no longer trusts his own judgement. The techniques are similar to those used in brainwashing, interrogation and torture, the instruments of psychological warfare. This is Machiavellian behaviour of the worst kind. A target exposed to it for long enough loses her sense of her own self. She finds herself second-guessing her own memory, becomes depressed and withdrawn and totally dependent on the abuser for her sense of reality.

Gaslighting is a deliberate ploy that occurs between one individual (The gaslighter - the sociopath in our case) and another (The gaslightee, often an empath). The endgame for the sociopath is when the gaslightee thinks he is going crazy. Anyone can become the victim of a sociopath's gaslighting moves. Gaslighting can take place in any kind of relationship - between parent and child, between siblings or friends, or between groups of people including work colleagues. Going back to our analogy of the Emperor's New Clothes, it is the process of gaslighting that distorts our sense of reality and makes us disbelieve what we see. Even when the victim is bewildered there is a reluctance to see the gaslighter for what he is. Denial is essential for gaslighting to work. 

Psychotherapist Christine Louis de Canonville describes different phases that the abuser leads the relationship through: different phases that the abuser leads the relationship through: the Idealization stage, the devaluation stage, and the discarding stage. Gaslighting does not happen all at once, so if you suspect in the early stages of a relationship that you are being gaslighted, you can protect yourself by walking away. (page 48 -49)

"The Idealization stage

During this early stage the sociopath shows herself in the best possible light. But this phase is an illusion. The sociopath intends only to draw her target in. At the beginning of the relationship she is usually ultra-attentive, charming, energetic, exciting and great fun. If the context is a new romantic relationship, the targeted person may feel he loves the sociopath intensely. It can feel like an addictive or hypnotic sort of love. Caught up in the euphoria, he becomes hooked. If the context is a friendship, the person targeted may feel she has never in her life met anyone with whom she has more in common. In the workplace, the person may feel she has finally found a boss who sees her true potential. The target does all he or she can to gain the sociopath's special approval. The boss might tempt him along with words to the effect of 'I see a lot of me in you'.

The devaluation stage

Once the sociopath has assessed the target's strengths and weaknesses, the first phase is over and the devaluation stage begins. From here on in, the sociopath is cold and unfeeling. This phase begins gradually so the targeted person is not alert to the transformation. Nevertheless at some point it will begin to seem to the target that he can't do anything right. She feels devalued at every turn. Totally confused, the targeted person becomes increasingly stressed, unhappy, low in mood or depressed. The gaslighting effect is under way. Confused by the sociopath's behaviour, the targeted person tries harder to please his sociopathic abuser in order to get the relationship back on track. But no matter what he does, he only seems to cause the sociopath further injury. The target gets caught up in a spiral of sociopathic abuse where unpredictably and uncertainty are routinu, until finally he becomes a shadow of his former self. The paradox of the situation is that the more distressed the target becomes, the more the sociopath enjoys the power of the situation, and the more powerful she feels, the more blatant and extreme her abuse becomes. 

Devaluation, according to Louis de Canonville, can be delivered through many different forms and levels of attack. The targeted person has been conditioned, appearing in all intents and purposes to the outside world to be a willing partner in the sociopath's games. If he does manage to escape the sociopathic individual, he is at high risk of future entrapment by other sociopaths, because he is primed in a way that other sociopaths can spot.

The discarding stage

In the discarding stage, the game comes to its conclusion. By this time the sociopath has lost her ardour for the game, for she views the contest as already won. The target is reduced to an object, something to which the sociopath is totally indifferent; it is as if the targeted individual no longer exists. The targeted person on the other hand is left confused and raw with emotion. In the context of a romantic association he may scramble around trying to find a way to rescue the dying relationship. But the sociopath resists all attempts to re-establish any connection, using bullying tactics such as silence or coldness in retaliation; she is probably already making moves to secure her next target. " (page 50 - 51)

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 3

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

After taking great care to define the three key terms of empath, apath and sociopath the authors dove into the interactions of the three.

 "The sociopathic transaction

Often empaths are targeted by sociopaths because they pose the greatest threat. The empath is usually the first to detect that something is not right and express what he or she senses. As a consequence, the empath is both the sociopath's number one foe and a source of attraction; the empath's responses and actions provide excellent entertainment for a bored and listless sociopath going about her daily business."

 (page 44)

 "The world of the empath is not for the fainthearted, and it is easy to see why others walk away from these kinds of confrontational situations. In the context that we are discussing, empaths often find themselves up against not only the sociopath but quite often a flock of apaths as well. Apaths hide among the 60 per cent of people who obediently follow the leader. On the basis of these traits they are afforded pole position in the sociopath's intrigues. But this prime spot comes at a price, for in what we call the sociopathic transaction, the apath makes an unspoken Faustian pact with the sociopath, and then passively (often through fear) or otherwise, participates in his cruel sport.

The Sociopath-Empath-Apath Triad

For a sociopathic transaction to be effective it requires the following threesome: a sociopath, an empath and an apath. We call this the Sociopath-Empath-Apath Triad - SEAT for short. The usual set-up goes something like this: the empath is forced to make a stand on seeing the sociopath say or do something underhand. The empath challenges the sociopath, who straight away throws others off the scent and shifts the blame on to the empath. The empath becomes an object of abuse when the apath corroborates the sociopath's perspective. Ultimately the situation usually ends badly for the empath, and sometimes also for the apath (If his conscience comes back to haunt him or subsequently he becomes an object of abuse himself). Frustratingly, however, the sociopath often gets off scot free.

Sociopaths rarely vary this tried and tested formula because it virtually guarantees them success. In fact, in almost every sociopathic interaction we know of, this interpersonal exchange is enacted. The sociopathic transaction relies heavily on the apathy of those close to the event or situation and highlights the importance of the apath in the transaction." (page 45)

 "Sociopaths draw in apaths by numerous means: flattery, bribery, disorienting them with lies. A sociopath will go to any lengths to win her game." (page 46)

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 2

This is one post in a series about The Empathy Trap Book by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor. Unless stated otherwise all quotes used here are from that book. It is recommended that the series be read in order from the first post on. 

The authors of The Empathy Trap book picked up with descriptions of the social interactions of the sociopath. 

 "Unremitting abuse of other people is an activity of the sociopath that stands out above the rest. To win their games, sociopaths enlist the help of hangers-on, which means that their interactions frequently involve not only the chosen target but a third party we call the apath - we'll explain why below.

The apath

In the context of any sociopathic interaction we call those that collude in the sport of the sociopath apathetic, or 'apaths' for short. An apath is the type of person most likely to do the sociopath's bidding. Being apathetic in this situation means showing a lack of concern or being indifferent to the targeted person. In chapter 3 we highlighted the importance of 'seeing' the problem for what it is via the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes, which represents the collective denial and double standards that are often a feature of social life. The apath in this context is someone who is willing to be blind, i.e. not to see that the Emperor is naked." (page 33)

 "Apaths are an integral part of the sociopath's arsenal and contribute to sociopathic abuse; sociopaths have an uncanny knack of knowing who will assist them in bringing down the person they are targeting. It's not necessarily easy to identify an apath from the outside. In other circumstances an apath may show ample empathy and concern for others, just not in this case. The one attribute an apath must have is some connection to the sociopath's target. Hence close friends, siblings, parents and other close relations can become accomplices to the sociopath and be instrumental in the downfall of the targeted individual.

How apaths, who may otherwise be fair-minded people, become involved in such destructive business isn't difficult to understand, though it can be hard to accept. The main qualifying attribute of the apath that renders him a willing accomplice is poor judgement resulting from a lack of insight. This may be linked to reduced empathy for the targeted person. The apathetic person might bear a grudge, be jealous or angry, or have a sense of being let down by the individual concerned, and in consequence may be as keen as the sociopath to see the target defeated. Hence, the apath may be willing to join forces with the sociopath because he too has something to gain from the evolving situation.

At other times the apath doesn't want to see 'bad' in others, so chooses not to see because he has enough on his plate and doesn't possess the wherewithal or the moral courage to help the targeted person at that time. Usually, and whatever the reasons for his active or passive involvement, what happens during the course of interaction with a sociopath is that the apathetic person's conscience appears to fall asleep. Apaths walk in and out of situations in a trance-like state. It is this scenario that causes people blindly to follow leaders motivated only by self-interest. We excuse bullying, outrages, even murder, on the grounds that the leader knows best, regarding the injured and maimed targets not as fellow human beings, but as objects, as 'it'. " (page 34)

I included this extensive excerpt because I felt that the definition of apath is such a new idea and so important to the authors that I would not be thorough enough if I left this out.

The authors described the Milgram obedience experiments and the fact that about sixty percent of people would comply with instructions to apply a series of gradually increasing electrical shocks to another person in a different room as long as they had a man in a lab coat with a clipboard saying the following commands:

'Please continue.'

'The experiment requires that you continue.'

'It is absolutely essential that you continue.'

'You have no other choice, you must go on.'

Yale professor Stanley Milgram carried out the original experiments in 1961 - 1962and the results have been closely duplicated in many other studies by different teams in different countries. Consistently about sixty percent of people would comply with the orders and give what they thought were potentially fatal shocks to another person in a different room.

 "In fact the studies suggest that over 60 per cent of us have a tendency to 'follow the leader' whether that leader is malign or benign. Within this majority group lurk the apaths, the foot-soldiers to the sociopath. Apaths are less able to see the situation for what it really is; their view of the bigger picture is obscured by their attitude to and opinion of the target, and by the sociopath's mesmeric influence." ( page 37)

 "Apaths are often fearful people; individuals who feel they do not possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge. They are the ones most likely to go with the flow, to agree that the Emperor is wearing new clothes. But apaths may also fail to perceive any threat at all. A danger is of no importance if one denies its existence. An apath's response to a sociopath's call to arms can then result from a state of 'learned helplessness'. Apaths behave defencelessly because they want to avoid unpleasant or harmful circumstances. Apathy is an avoidance strategy."

 (page 38)

The authors gave several examples of apaths and it is well worth checking out.

For the sake of brevity I won't include all the examples they gave.

Next the authors took on the subject of empaths.

 "The empath

Not always, but quite often, the person being targeted by the sociopath is an empath. To understand why this is, and what is going on when it happens, we first need to understand what an empath is. Most human beings have the ability to empathize, but some have more ability than others. Empathy is a vague and elusive concept." 

 "Empathy is a shared emotion. To show empathy is emotionally to put yourself in the place of another. It is a learned phenomena that requires emotional control and the capacity to distinguish oneself from others. Most of us possess the automatic ability to perceive and share others' feelings. A baby listening to another baby cry will cry too. Unconsciously people mimic the facial expressions of those they see. The ability to empathize is directly dependent on your ability to feel your own feelings and identify what they are. If you have never felt a certain feeling, it will be hard for you to understand how someone else is experiencing that feeling.

An empath, in the context that we apply the term, is not a person with near magical powers. Empaths are ordinary people who are highly perceptive and insightful and belong to the 40 percent of human beings who sense when something's not right (those who respond to their 'gut instinct'). Going back to our folktale, 'The Emperor's New Clothes', the empath is the boy who mentions the unmentionable: that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Back in the 1990s, researchers suggested that there was a positive relationship between empathy and emotional intelligence. Since then that term has been used interchangeably with emotional literacy. What this means in practice is that empaths have the ability to understand their own emotions, to listen to other people and empathize with their emotions, to express emotions productively and to handle their emotions in such a way as to improve their personal power. " (page 42)

 "Disharmony creates an uncomfortable feeling in an empath and in a confrontation he will try to settle things quickly. People are often attracted to empaths because of their compassionate nature. Even complete strangers find it easy to talk to empaths about personal matters because in general they make great listeners. A particular attribute of empaths is that they are sensitive to the emotional distress of others. Conversely they have trouble comprehending a closed mind and lack of compassion in others. They can be highly expressive and inclined to talk openly about themselves, although they often find it hard to take a compliment. Very highly empathic people (sometimes super-empaths) may find themselves helping others at the expense of their own needs, which can lead them to withdraw from the outside world and becoming loners.

It's odd; most of us enjoy watching films and reading books about heroes who refuse to go along with the crowd, which suggests there is something admirable about people who make a bold stand, but in real life watching someone raise their head above the parapet often makes the rest of us feel queasy. Most - the 60 per cent plus majority - prefer the easy life and choose to maintain the status quo. What prevents many of us from acting on our consciences is fear; fear hems us in. It was interesting to discover, when doing this research for this book, how often people referred to empathic types as fearful, too sensitive and vulnerable. In other words, many see empaths in problematic terms. It is true that some psychologists consider super-empathy a personality disorder or difficulty in its own right, especially if an individual reaches a state where he is so moved by others'emotions that he is overwhelmed by the amount of empathy he feels. But our experience suggests that people of such extreme empathy are few and far between. At any rate most empaths thrive very well in spite of, or indeed because of, their easy ability to empathize." (page 43)

 "Empaths use their ability to empathize to boost theirs and others' well-being and safety. Problems arise for empaths, however, whenever there are apaths in their vicinity. Empaths can be brought down, distressed and forced into the position of the lone fighter by the inaction of more apathetic types around them. " (page 44)

I included so much of the material on the definition of empaths because it is required to understand the model the authors use.

Examining The Empathy Trap Book 1

This post is on the book The Empathy Trap by Dr Jane McGregor and Tim McGregor.

Unless otherwise stated, all quotes used in this post are from this book.

I want to say that the book is in my opinion a great introductory book regarding sociopaths, antisocial personality disorder, narcissism and human predators. It doesn't require extensive or even introductory education regarding these topics and is designed for laypeople with no specialized education or even education beyond the high school level, like myself.

I feel that books that are designed for people who have no advanced education are particularly useful for ex Scientologists and ex cult members of all types because we very often have no college education to draw on. I certainly didn't go to college during my twenty-five years in Scientology.

I think The Empathy Trap takes a lot of basic information on human predators, on the social support they rely on and the way that they interact with other people and combines this all to propose a useful and intriguing hypothesis regarding the behavior of human predators and the people in their environment to give us a model well worth considering.

At just under a hundred and thirty pages it is a quick read and an extremely easy one. If you ever were exposed to a human predator or in a cult I think the information in this book may be very useful for you. It also has a test regarding empathy at the back.

By focusing on the roles of human predators and the people who help them and the people who oppose them it gives us a needed perspective on the interactive social factors regarding this subject. It compliments the more advanced books Terror, Love and Brainwashing by Alexandra Stein and Traumatic Narcissism by Daniel Shaw.  

The authors use the term sociopath to describe individuals with little or no conscience and ability to empathize with others' feelings. They note that Martha Stout in her book The Sociopath Next Door estimates sociopaths at 4 percent of the population. Robert Hare had estimated that they are 1 percent of the population but in the book he co-authored, Snakes in Suits, he suggested that in some professions that encourage sociopathic behavior the percentage may be higher. Business executives for example are encouraged to be callous and ruthless.

If we look at The Sociopath Next Door we can see that Stout adds other categories of human predators like narcissists and so do several other experts. Human predators in total may be closer to 10 percent or so, if we include all the categories.

The authors feel sociopathic behavior has a substantial public health dimension and should get far more attention than it currently does. I concur.

The authors pointed that the distinctions between the various types of human predators such as sociopath, psychopath, narcissist, and borderline personality disorder are blurry and confusing. Much of the literature is inconsistent with one expert defining a psychopath one way and another using a different definition. 

They explored the early diagnosis of people who lack conscience. The book The Mask of Sanity, published in 1941, by Hervey Cleckley was a major step forward and is often used by experts today. Robert Hare built on Cleckley's work and developed the Psychopathy Checklist and later the revised PCL-R which became the gold standard to diagnose the psychopath.

It includes features such as deficits in interpersonal relations such as grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness, a lack of guilt and empathy, and impulsive and criminal behaviors. 

Hare pointed out that the term used reflects the user's views on the origin of the condition. For those who feel social forces are entirely the cause the term sociopath is appropriate, while others who feel it is caused by a combination of genetic, psychological, and biological factors use the term psychopath. 

There is still debate about whether sociopaths and psychopaths are the same or different today and probably will be for some time to come. Some people see some people as intrinsically evil while others believe the problem is that some people lack empathy. 

The authors gave several examples of sociopaths in various roles, including a school bully, a business executive, a spouse and a parent.The examples are short and simple, giving you the barebones facts on how these people interact socially.

They pointed out a number of traits that sociopaths share including superficial charm. They described sociopaths as lacking social inhibitions, and being rarely tongue-tied. They are not held back by social convention that encourages us to talk in turns. They talk at you, confident that you will agree with everything they say.

This description provided by the authors immediately struck me as similar to the way cult leaders, abusive partners and totalitarian organizations communicate. They give you a one way flow as described in Scientology doctrine. Scientology in indoctrination is a one way flow of information from the Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard to the Scientology student, it lacks a back and forth and also crucially leaves no room for doubts, questions about the legitimacy of the ideas in Scientology or the arguments and evidence both for and against Scientology. Critical thinking about Scientology is forbidden. 

The reality is that an organization can be sociopathic in design, such as a cult or bureaucracy with a one way flow of commands or important information from the top in a rigid hierarchy down to those below,  and thereby may have an aspect of sociopathic character to it. 

 "Often they have a lot to say. A 'conversation' with a sociopath can feel like a bombardment. To the untrained ear sociopaths' pronouncements sound authoritative because they tend to use words and phrases intended to make them sound knowledgeable, but which on dissection sometimes prove nothing more than gobbledygook. This peculiarity in their mode of expression can be exacerbated by their use of muddled-up phrases and mixed metaphors. No one really knows why this is the case, but it seems to be a common feature." (page 21)

I included this because it struck me as entirely accurate regarding the loaded language used in Scientology doctrine. If you look at Scientology it has two five hundred page dictionaries packed with definitions for terms made up by Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard. And if you compare the various definitions it becomes clear he loved to define one new term with several others, leaving a student chasing after the definitions for hundreds of hours to look up terms inside terms inside terms, like Russian nesting dolls without end.In examining the new definitions an additional layer of confusion is created by the paradoxical and contradictory statements in Scientology doctrine, including definitions that contradict each other for the exact same term in the dictionary right next to each other and this is compounded by the other new terms in the definitions themselves.

Perhaps there is no clearer example of this in depth than the dictionaries themselves and it is on full display in the essential core Scientology reference, Keeping Scientology Working. It is jam packed with muddled-up phrases and mixed metaphors and designed to utterly overwhelm and confuse the student. It is in every major course in Scientology and often referred to over and over again.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Scientologists often read it dozens or hundreds of times in their indoctrination.    

The authors remarked on how sociopaths use good manners or flattery very often to draw people in, to form alliances or peer groups, and the sociopath can seem like a go-getter,an adventurer and use a grandiose air and smooth conversation to add to the illusion of being someone special. The sociopath makes normal people feel boring and insipid by comparison. 

They described everything the sociopath does as calculated to have an effect on you and that the charm of the sociopath and smile and everything else may feel fake because it is fake. The sociopath acts like people who understand and agree are special, perhaps especially aware or sane or moral or intelligent. This is a feedback loop of giving the sociopath positive or even neutral attention, listening without criticism or negative remarks, and the sociopath acts appreciative of this, as if it shows good character or judgement for you to listen, which is flattering to the target. It feels good to be appreciated. So, the target can fall for the flattery and try to find something positive in the sociopath and so they use confirmation bias and in-group bias to try to find any way the sociopath could be right and sweep away anything negative about the sociopath, including red flags. After all it feels better to like a good person and to have good judgement than to have been duped with false flattery by a bad person. It feeds your ego to be flattered by the sociopath and so they use this to tie your ego to their image. 

Then you can reflexively defend their reputation and actions just like you would your own. The sociopath sees life as a game, a game with sides and alliances and ever shifting power, advantages and disadvantages, and a kind of war of all against all that most people are either playing covertly like they are or that they are unaware of. Some sociopaths see everyone who doesn't recognize this underlying game with no rules of each person against everyone else deep down as beneath contempt. They don't admire people who are friendly, trusting, see good in others, compassionate, and so on. They see such people as a lower order of being. They may have no love or compassion for other sociopaths but they have a willingness to treat them as real threats or people to be taken seriously, they understand that other sociopaths see the world as they do, an underlying game with no rules, no decency, no place for honesty or compassion and that these traits are weaknesses for the foolish in their opinion. They see their ruthless cruelty as efficiency, their selfishness as the obvious choice to survive, any alternative is seen as naive, stupid and foolish. They may see other sociopaths as real players in the game and the majority of people as pieces to be manipulated and used like pawns. 

The outlook of everything being a game fits in with the sociopath's need for constant stimulation. The authors pointed out that a sociopath is easily bored, perhaps because their emotional repertoire is so limited. They have a very limited range of emotions and regular people have a constant state of experiencing a wider array of emotions and these emotions often are unnoticed but influencing us, like background music but always present. 

 "They engage in 'mind games' (a struggle for psychological one-upmanship), and employ behaviour to specifically demoralize or empower their target. In this way

 they undermine their targets'confidence in their own perceptions. The sociopath may invalidate other people's experience: not only its significance and content but the person's capacity to trust her recollection of events, hence making the person feel guilty for holding her original view. Such abusive mind games may include discounting (denial of the person's reality), diverting, trivializing, undermining, threatening and anger." (page 22)

 "Not all competitive people are sociopathic, clearly. What we are talking about here is aggressive behaviour where the sociopath misuses others in order to beat off rivals and pushes ahead regardless of whether others get hurt or not. Because they are indifferent to others, sociopaths do not display a proper sense of social responsibility." (page 22)

 "They develop strategies which allow them to ignore social convention, reason and evidence in the pursuit of some personal goal. Sociopaths may well believe they exhibit extraordinary social responsibility, and unfortunately society often colludes in this." (page 22 - 23)

 "A parasitic lifestyle

Another commonly observed characteristic of the sociopath is a parasitic nature. To someone targeted by a sociopath with strong parasitic tendencies it can feel literally as if life is being sucked out of them. Parasitic behavior is associated with passive aggression. Passive aggressives do not deal with things directly. They talk behind your back and put others in the position of telling you what they would not say themselves. They find subtle ways of letting you know they are not happy. They are unlikely to show their angry or resentful nature. They conceal it behind a facade of affability, politeness and a show of well-meaning. However, underneath there is usually manipulation going on." (page 23)

 "Types of passive aggression include victimization - a situation where the person concerned is unable to look at his own part in a situation and turns the tables to become the victim, or at least to behave like one; self-pity - the 'poor me' scenario; blaming others for situations rather than being able to take responsibility for one's  own actions; withholding usual behaviours or roles in order to reinforce to the other party that you are angry; and learned helplessness, where a person acts as if cannot help himself. It is common for someone acting in this way to deliberately do a poor job of something to make a point. The important thing to note is that passive aggression is a destructive pattern of behaviour and a form of emotional abuse. Such behaviours cause great distress to the target, who often feels overburdened with guilt and responsibility. " (page 23)

"Manipulative behaviour

Psychological manipulation is a mainstay of the sociopath, who uses behaviour to influence or control others in a deceptive and dishonest way. Advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods are exploitative, abusive, devious and deceptive.

Manipulators may control their victims through positive reinforcement, which involves employing praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears) and excessive apologies, money, approval and gifts, attention, and the use of facial expressions such as a forced laughter or smiles, all for public recognition. Another approach is negative reinforcement - removing the person from a negative situation as a reward; for example, 'You won't have to pay all those bills if you allow me to move in with you.' Yet other means are intermittent or partial reinforcement, used to create a climate of fear and doubt, and punishment, including nagging, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail and crying as ways of playing the victim.

A sociopathic manipulator can cause you to believe you are going crazy. If you find yourself in a relationship where you think you need to keep a record of what's been said and begin to question your own sanity, likely as not you are experiencing emotional manipulation. A sociopath is an expert in turning things around, rationalizing, justifying and explaining things away. He lies so smoothly and argues so persuasively that you begin to doubt your own senses. Over a period of time this is so eroding it can distort your sense of reality. The sociopath can make you feel guilty for speaking up or not speaking out, for being emotional or not being emotional enough, for caring or not caring enough. Manipulation is a powerful strategy. Most of us are conditioned to check ourselves, and we are usually our own worst critics. If accused of being in the wrong or acting imperfectly we do whatever is necessary to reduce our feelings of guilt. " (page 24 -25)

The authors elaborated on the strategies that sociopaths use to recruit people to their side and also to be neutral when they act.It is well worth checking out.

 "Pathological lying

The fact is that sociopaths lie. There are two recognized categories of people who constantly lie: compulsive and pathological. The first - compulsive liars - lie out of habit. There is no real reason, and they don't lie intentionally to hurt anyone.

The latter - pathological liars - lie for altogether different reasons. This category is the kind into which sociopaths usually fall. Sociopathic liars lie to gain something. Their lying is often calculated and cunning. Sociopaths don't care who their lies will affect, as long as the lie fits their purpose and achieves what they want. Unlike compulsive liars, sociopathic liars can help themselves. They may well know the difference between right and wrong, but the crux of the matter is they don't care - though they can be so good at lying that they believe their own lies." (page 26 -27)

The authors pointed out that sociopaths lie about their past relationships, their academic records and achievements. They also lie to different people with different lies, tailored to persuade the specific target being lied to and are careful to keep the people from getting together to compare their lies.

"Pathological lying is persistent lying. It doesn't matter if the lies are easily disproved, because for some illogical reason they are seldom challenged. The lies sociopaths create may be fantastic in nature, extensive, elaborate and complicated. Often there is a blurring between fiction and reality. The magnitude of the lie or its callous nature is irrelevant, and so are any consequences. Such characteristics have led researchers to conclude that the lying behaviour might be gratifying in itself, and the expected reward external." (page 28)

The described sociopathic lying fits the behaviour of people like Scientology founder Ronald Hubbard exactly and far too many cult leaders and politicians to even count, frankly. To be clear not every politician demonstrates this, but certainly a great many do. 

 "Lack of empathy and remorse

Simon Baron-Cohen, author of Zero Degrees of Empathy, defines empathy as an ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling, and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. What causes people to be capable of seriously hurting one another is not rightly understood, but when our empathy is 'switched off' and we operate solely on an 'I' basis (viewing the world as if only we existed), we are much more inclined to view other people as objects. This is the standpoint from which sociopaths are thought to see the rest of us.

Baron-Cohen suggests that we all stand somewhere on the empathy spectrum (from high to low) in a relatively stable position, though this is not immovable. In other words, you may experience quite a high level of empathy in general but your ability to empathize with others may display an occasional 'blip' . The good news is that for most of us our empathy is recoupable. For those with a long-standing lack of empathy, unfortunately it is not. 

A side effect of having no empathy is that sociopaths take no responsibility for their own behaviour. It is always about what has been done to them. One of the easiest ways to spot a sociopath is that he often attempts to establish intimacy through the early sharing of deeply personal information that is generally intended to make you feel sorry for him. " (page 30)

 "From the available literature it would seem that when women direct their aggression towards others, their victims are generally those within their domestic sphere of control - a partner, a family member, a child, a friend or a work colleague. In addition, much of the harm or aggression carried out by women involves manipulation of, or damage to, peer relationships through aggressive competitiveness, the withdrawal of friendship, ostracism, overt bullying, telling lies about the victim to promote her rejection by others and other acts of interpersonal aggression, in order to exclude the victim from the social group. Conversely, when men direct their aggression toward others, its function is to damage the victim's sense of control or dominance over the perpetrator of the aggression. Male aggression is more visible and more likely to result in arrest and punishment than is the case with women. " (page 32)

Trump Supporters - I Figured You Out! Haha!

I have made lots of comments and posts and shared many memes about Trump supporters and came to the conclusion that after reading lots of articles and a book and seen plenty of videos that I have YOU all figured out!

Before I present my rock solid one hundred percent verified conclusion on the character, motivation and thoughts and attitudes of each and every one of you, I want to present a quick and dirty summary of how I got to the definitive answer.

I read several books on the differences between liberals and conservatives like Don't Think Of An Elephant! and Moral Politics by George Lakoff, Our Political Nature by Avi Tuschman, The Political Brain by Drew Westen, Words That Work by Frank Luntz and The Righteous Kind by Jonathon Haidt.

I read The Cult of Trump by Steve Hassan and Losing Reality by Robert Jay Lifton.

I read countless articles and watched innumerable videos.

At first I saw articles explaining the election of Trump by presenting statistics that seemed to validate the hypothesis that it was simply racism that motivated Trump supporters. I thought it was simple and the case was solved. 

But, I ran into other articles that correlated the communities that voted for Trump with opioid addiction levels.

Then I saw articles that correlated the support with industrial jobs lost under Clinton and Obama.

Then I saw more and more and more. If you look at enough statistics and are after confirmation of a hypothesis you can find some very often that show a correlation between two things that you want to believe are linked.

I can, for example, demonstrate that in the United States for the last fifty years when a product with a certain substance is sold violent crime spikes and as the product is sold less the crime drops. Each year every single time. Sell the product more and crime rises, sell it less and crime drops.

Should we ban this product to reduce violent crime?

It seems like a no brainer!

The product by the way is ice cream. Yep. 

See, people tend to get more irritable and angry and short tempered when it gets hot and coincidentally they also buy more ice cream when it gets hotter.

So, we have correlation between unrelated phenomena. The violence doesn't cause the ice cream consumption and the ice cream consumption doesn't cause the violence but on a graph they have nearly identical up and down patterns, because we are both willing to eat ice cream more and more violent, in general, when it is hot.

So, I looked and looked at all this data and realized it is not really established to the level of scientific rigor.

I am not invalidating every idea in every book I listed.

I am saying that the Vox or Salon or AlterNet story that tries to explain every Trump supporter as an idiot, racist, selfish, white supremacist, opioid addiction sufferer, economically disadvantaged, redneck, wealthy elite, evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. etc. person with a couple graphs of correlated data is not up to scientific standards and should be treated as an opinion that lacks evidence.

I am going to address a few points on this with an imaginary conversation between me and two people. I will talk to a conservative devil's advocate (cda) and a liberal devil's advocate (lda). I know they are imaginary and could be called strawmen but bear with me.

Me: I looked at the data and frankly, after years, have reached the best answer I think I have got yet.

Lda: great! You wrote a hundred things about how stupid, biased, racist, selfish, cultic, authoritarian and terrible they are! I am looking forward to more!

Me: okay, okay.

Cda: pfft, you dumb libtard, commie, snowflake, you don't know anything.

Me: okay, okay.

Here it is guys. I looked and looked and thought I had it figured out, then looked, adjusted my opinion and again thought I had it figured out and looked some more.

Lda: you shared a thousand memes calling them out! Yay!

Me: yes, I did.

Cda: whatever, I am not interested in your one sided hit jobs or childish insults.

Me: yeah, yeah. So, as I was about to say - after looking at this stuff for years my conclusion is going with ANY of these explanations for ALL Trump supporters or ANY PARTICULAR ONE without a lot more evidence of a much higher quality is wrong.

Lda: WTF? I know you are not saying that they are not racist!

Me: I, at this point, can't say a particular one or even most Trump supporters are racist. I know, it is a reversal, but the evidence is not there to support that claim in my opinion.

Lda: but, but, you gotta admit that they are at best indifferent to his racism and racism adjacent! 

Me: NO.

Lda: then you are a racist white supremacist piece of shit!

Me: I understand your opinion.

Lda: it's not an opinion! It's a fact you piece of shit!

Me: okay, that went well.

Cda: what's your game? Are you trying to come over to our side now.

Me: NO. I am not going to do that.

Cda: then what is the point? Why not just say nothing?

Me: because I tell people to look at the best evidence and arguments both for and against ideas. I tell people to be mindful of believing things that lack good evidence. I tell them to be aware of unexamined assumptions, our tendency to be guided by cognitive biases and to think in and fall for logical fallacies.

I tell people to doubt and question their beliefs and adjust them if the evidence warrants it.

This is what we are supposed to do, evaluate evidence and arguments, find more, especially for important issues, give it serious consideration and adjust our beliefs accordingly.

I am convinced that some people fit some categories that have been assigned to all or most Trump supporters BUT the evidence is not sufficient in my opinion to justify saying these things about all or most Trump supporters. So, a minority, even a small or tiny minority may fit the stereotype in some way, but that is a poor way to describe all, most or even one particular Trump supporter without having so much additional evidence that it is the same amount you would require for any other person.

Lda: that's crazy! The fact that they support Trump is plenty of evidence!

Me: in the way that ice cream sales matching violence is "proof" that ice cream makes people violent or that violence makes people crave ice cream. It's a correlation with a lack of a causal link. It is not good evidence and the burden of proof is not met by it, not even a little bit.

Cda: I cannot believe that a guy who wrote a blog series calling all Trump supporters cult members is saying this.

Me: you are right, a person who called all Trump supporters cult members isn't saying this. Because I never said that.

I had a post in which I wrote that 95% of the people at ESMB are nice and complained about 5% and was told I said "everyone at ESMB..." and I have written over and over and over that mind control, hypnosis,etc. only works on some people and not others over and over. Then been told I said "Scientology hypnotized all of us!" also, over and over.

As Warren Beatty said people don't remember what you said, they remember how you made them feel. If you make them feel bad and your take has exceptions, nuance, caveats and qualifiers they often distort it to be absolute and definite, even if they omit the most important things you actually said.

In both cases my claims upset people - who then distorted them, and vociferously objected to claims they were certain of but they could have looked at the record, because we only interact online, so the information is still available.

The posts I wrote on the cult of Trump always include the information that the claim that Trump supporters are in a cult is not true for all of them, it is not a black and white issue and of his followers that are in a cultic relationship with him the degree and even type of relationship varies greatly.

Lots of people have cultic relationships of varying degrees with all kinds of people.

The fact is we don't know what percent of his followers are in a cultic relationship. It could be, for example, two million people. That sounds like a lot, sure, but he could have a hundred million supporters. Two million out of a hundred million is only two percent. That's not a high percent for a president or really famous person. It could be higher or lower, we don't really know.

So, if you call his followers a cult and leave that out, you are being inaccurate and wrong.

Cda: so, are you saying he is a normal leader?

Me: no, not at all. I believe he has a lot of issues and they have not evaporated just because his followers are individuals and many, maybe a very large majority, are not people who fit the negative stereotypes that have been attributed to them. 

Me: the case regarding him is still available. But his followers are not him and should not be treated like they are him.

Cda: what are you looking to get out of this? I mean you shared a thousand memes that insulted us? Why should we believe you?

Me: good question. I have written a lot about Scientology and leaving Scientology.

I ran into a few Scientologists who try to discourage and discredit me over and over again.

They have lied about me and I sometimes carefully explain they are wrong.

They in various turns say I was never in Scientology, despite my being in Scientology for twenty five years, and that I just repeat what others taught me and I never read Scientology doctrine myself, despite my spending hundreds, probably thousands, of hours studying Scientology, they say I am sharing fake quotes of Hubbard despite the quotes being from the materials I studied in Scientology while a Scientologist on courses in a Scientology course room and on and on.

One got discouraged as I could debunk lie after lie after lie he spreads and finally got what he thought was a winning strategy.

He pointed out that I had attested to my courses and wrote success stories about them, and his masterstroke was asking if I was lying then, when I claimed gains from Scientology or if I was lying now?

I explained that I believed in Scientology while in and have since gotten more information and changed my mind. Everyone has the right to change their mind, it is not lying.

He could not accept it and kept harping on about how it has to be lying and his Scientological logic is that if I am a liar, then all the evidence and arguments I presented are invalid, because that is how Hubbard and David Miscavige attack people. But it is poor logic, a claimant is not a claim and liars sometimes present valid claims. But that was lost on this Scientologist. 

I changed my mind when I left Scientology and I have changed it again.

I have figured out that Trump supporters are individuals and should be treated as individuals. All you know about them is that they support Trump. That is it. They may be any kind of person and you can set aside the fact that they support Trump when evaluating if they are good, bad, honest, dishonest, generous, selfish and a million other things, because the fact that they support Trump doesn't tell you any of those things.

See, I figured you all out!