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)
