Therapist Clueless About Sociopaths

[Ronin]

I'll... address a few things with this thread as general points raised before I get into specific replies (sorry, ADHD day & I'm needing to triple check who-said-what.)

It seems a lot of people here equate psychopathy and sociopathy respectively with specific motivations and set-in-stone behaviors. Not super wise. People with these types of emotionality are still people first. It's still needed to know what makes that *particular person* tick and why and how much and in what way, even if one happens to categorize them well. It still helps more to look at the person first, keeping the diagnosis in mind in interaction but looking at the person first.

Organization of behavior & not are wholely different axis. Don't have that much to do with how much a 'path one is.

Blanket statements of 'they never seek therapists, their victims do' are easily proven incorrect. (I'll get personal on this one. One of the people I see as a brother is textbook & diagnosed sociopath. He's been years on-and-off in therapy because someone else he's close to, he cares for. It's not the same type of caring empaths'd do. To many it'd seem like just head messing everyone involved. Still, people close to the situation are rather aware what he's doing is progress.)

Crime is... different thing altogether. Criminal behavior isn't limited to any one type of person. It'd be nice to stop equating the two.

(I have way many thoughts on the topic, both history and current part-time employment. I work with teens many nick 'troubled youth'. Most of them empaths, even if not particularly empath*ic*. Some of them not. They all need specific *individual* care. They're as different from each other as any other two persons are. In my prior lines of work & in quite a few of my relationships, I've dealt with people anywhere on empathy spectrum and criminality one. The two don't correlate, not necessarily. Just as IQ doesn't imply level of organization & is but an aspect of intelligence, etc.

It's all apples and oranges. I'm bit frustrated I'm not able to get that point across.)

 

[greenleaf]

It seems a lot of people here equate psychopathy and sociopathy respectively with specific motivations and set-in-stone behaviors. Not super wise. People with these types of emotionality are still people first. It's still needed to know what makes that *particular person* tick and why and how much and in what way, even if one happens to categorize them well. It still helps more to look at the person first, keeping the diagnosis in mind in interaction but looking at the person first.

@Kaia, I'm going to try to put into words a sort of intuition I have been developing about your post; please be patient if I don't get this quite right.

It seems like your perspective is written towards a policy of overall societal treatment of people with the varied pathologies we have been discussing here. For instance... how should mental health and health care workers (responsible for treating the individual), judges, employers, etc. view and plan to treat people who simply have such a diagnosis -- tentative or confirmed -- on a piece of paper? Such workers are understood to have resources to keep themselves physically safe while doing their work; they have the support of society to do so, generally.

Those are very important issues! They deserve lots of discussion in a lot of contexts!

However, this forum is specifically oriented towards survivors of all sorts of trauma, who have had the misfortune to also develop PTSD as a result. I would like to posit that we are not responsible for worry about our traumatizers' treatment while we are working on recovery. I'm not saying we have the right to track them down and off them or anything like that, but it is highly, highly unlikely that we are actually a mental health care worker, judge, or employer with any power over our traumatizer. If we were, the only ethical response would likely be to professionally recuse ourselves from the specific situation, and possibly other highly similar situations.

Survivors of childhood abuse are often tasked with the impossible responsibility of "fixing" their perpetrator by the dysfunctional family around them -- and sometimes by a manipulative perpetrator too. This can serve a lot of different twisted purposes; I bet a whole long thread could be started just on that, but it might make me personally very sick to my stomach.

@Kaia, I looked at one of your early posts here, and you had a large number of traumas yourself, it sounds like; I'm so sorry.. every person is always in a slightly different place with working through these things, and approaches that help us at one point can be hard to deal with at another point in our own recoveries.

I think that for a lot of people, giving the responsibility for worrying about the perpetrator, to the perpetrator, and feeling free to feel one's own anger (anger is not the same as action!!!) is crucial to recovery. This can actually be incredibly necessary in forming healthier personal boundaries for a survivor, who is one person trying to live one life, and cannot be equated to society's overall viewpoint of any other individuals... (that last part sounds intellectually ridiculous in one sense but actually does essentially get thrown at survivors in another sense, sometimes to try to silence such uncomfortable information it seems. People can be very reluctant to view the world through a survivor's eyes, as that can feel real scary... really really scary, and it can lead them to be more willing to empathize with a perpetrator than the survivor, which could be yet another horrid thread.)

Well, hopefully this makes sense to someone out there, not trying to insult anyone if it doesn't make sense to others...

 

[Ronin]

@greenleaf, I understand and appreciate where you're coming from.

However, my participating in this thread isn't to put responsibility on survivors/victims for their abuse, or saying they do owe these people understanding/sympathy/compassion/care/love, and so on. Nor am I saying it's in general something people who have been traumatized, abused, or may still be in those situations, should or need to do, for their perpetrators.

What I am saying is to understand one's abuse and to heal from it, it is necessary to look at *facts*, and process feelings with consideration of those facts. What I am saying it's helpful to victimized people to educate themselves about multi facetedness of their lives. How *what* shaped them. That there seem to be rather going in circles, and that going in circles is possibly helped... with education. What I'm saying is that education, at least for those of us participating in this discussion, is even likely *available*. (So in that regard we're in much better position than those without say, internet access.)

And what I *am* saying is there's multitude of situations where one's safety *depends* on correct information. This isn't about protecting, fixing, anyone's abuser or responsibility for it, my concern's here for the well being of people hurt by them.

 

[shimmerz]

Because some of us can recognize these patterns of behavior, but still haven't figured out how to practically interact with these types of PD type brains.

And this is a why the OP's question was excellent imho. I wanted to learn how I could understand, recognize and interact in a healthy manner through therapy.

If not dealt with in therapy, no matter the length, without the education of me (which relies on the therapist understanding the patterns of relationships we have fallen into) I will fall into the same types of relationships with the same type of people over and over again. This leads to trauma after trauma after trauma because I hadn't been taught to see how I played an active part in this dance - even if that part was through ignorance.

People with these types of emotionality are still people first.

I would happily switch places with you @Kaia. The people who have done to me what they have are not 'people first'. They are soul crushers. I would be thrilled if you would take my place with the monsters in my life. Would love your take on this after living one week in my shoes.

They are criminal in their behaviour but rarely are caught because they are spin doctors when it comes to assigning responsibility or getting others to do their dirty work for them.

 

[Dana1010]

they are spin doctors when it comes to assigning responsibility or getting others to do their dirty work for them.

There has been one woman in my life who I believe was a sociopath. When she decided to slander me, she knew exactly which big mouth idiot in our midst to give the goods to. It's awe inspiring the way they layer BS on top of BS and make it all seem effortless. They are like chess champions, always a move or two ahead of you.

 

[Friday]

It's all apples and oranges. I'm bit frustrated I'm not able to get that point across.)

Yep. Me, too.

My rapist was a man, therefore all men are rapists, and anyone who disagrees has obviously never met a man before, and never been raped, and why can't people understand why talking and affirming my belief about how all men are rapists is necessary to my recovery... Is simply too entrenched a windmill to keep tilting at.

There's a big difference between talking about specific types of trauma, and how that affected us then/ how that is affecting us now... And turning the lens around to look at the whole world through that lens (all men are rapists, so let's bash men! My parent abused me, so therefore all parents are abusers! And they all do this, and they all do that.) whether it's the personality of our abuser,,or the make and model of the car that hit us, or any other aspect which may vey well have a lot of direct bearing on us... But that doesn't translate to the world at large. Trying to translate it warps the usefulness.

As you say, apples and oranges.

Done & bowing out.

 

[shimmerz]

A rapist does rape.

From Psychology Today:
Key traits that sociopaths and psychopaths share include:

• A disregard for laws and social mores
• A disregard for the rights of others
• A failure to feel remorse or guilt
• A tendency to display violent behavior

There is more in this posting (which is the second time I have posted it).
[DLMURL]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath[/DLMURL]

All people are not sociopaths just as all men are not rapists. I am not sure how this applies to this thread.

 

[Friday]

Last try.

I must say that while a sociopath can be charming etc, when they feel you have shattered their veneer that is when they 'switch' and are (in my experience and which research supports) very dangerous. I just wonder whether you have 'ticked them off' so much so that they have ever targeted you or if you have avoided this 'piece' of them because you know how to keep the peace with them at all times. This may be why your experience with a sociopath or any type of 'path for that matter is not in line with the damage the OP has asked for strategies with in this posting.

There are 3 basic groups:
- Abusive sociopaths
- Not abusive sociopaths
- People who may be mistaken for sociopaths by others in the moment but who are, in fact, not. Their symptoms are situational, transitory, or just plain read wrong.

Yes. I've had a lot of interaction with all 3 groups, and no. Not all of it has been fun.

A rapist does rape.
All people are not sociopaths just as all men are not rapists. I am not sure how this applies to this thread.

Not all sociopaths are abusive.
That's the line we just keep coming back to.

It doesn't mean that it's not important... If your abuser was a sociopath, let's look at that and figure out what bothers you about it. But that's worlds away from, my abuser was a sociopath, let's let's start trashing sociopaths and painting them all with the same brush.

 

[Dana1010]

Not all sociopaths are abusive.

my abuser was a sociopath, let's let's start trashing sociopaths and painting them all with the same brush.

I'm the first to say, not all sociopaths are abusive - at least not physically. Many are silent but deadly con artists and manipulators who leave their victims not only damaged, but with no legal recourse since they didn't break any laws. "Dangerous" is not synonymous with "abusive." I can't see how in hell someone with the cluster of traits that defines psychopathy - have you not seen it? - could be safe to be around.

Maybe the person painting with a broad brush here is you. "I have a disorder, PTSD, and I am harmless, so everyone with a disorder must be harmless too." The DSM is this thick. The truth is we are probably all a little disordered. It's the dangerous disorders we have to be able to spot and steer clear of at all costs.

 

[shimmerz]

@FridayJones , I am absolutely not trying to frustrate you, just as I know you are not trying to frustrate me. I would like to figure this out because we seem so far apart and I don't generally feel this way with your postings. If I am messed up I would love to know it, so I am open.

I am not sure where you got this from. Do you have a source for this information as I would be interested in looking at it further as this seems to be the basis of your postings.

As quoted above by you:

There are 3 basic groups:
- Abusive sociopaths
- Not abusive sociopaths
- People who may be mistaken for sociopaths by others in the moment but who are, in fact, not. Their symptoms are situational, transitory, or just plain read wrong.

 

[greenleaf]

There are 3 basic groups:
- Abusive sociopaths
- Not abusive sociopaths
- People who may be mistaken for sociopaths by others in the moment but who are, in fact, not. Their symptoms are situational, transitory, or just plain read wrong.

I've just spent a bit of time perusing various online definitions of sociopath... I have yet to find a definition that leaves out actual behavior I pretty closely equate to abusiveness... e.g.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociopath
: someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abusive
: using harsh and insulting language
: using or involving physical violence or emotional cruelty


So, did we ever actually agree upon which definitions of "sociopath" and "psychopath" we are using here?

Maybe half of us are using FridayJone's third category...?

:confused::confused::confused:

 

[joeylittle]

think that for a lot of people, giving the responsibility for worrying about the perpetrator, to the perpetrator, and feeling free to feel one's own anger (anger is not the same as action!!!) is crucial to recovery.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Which is exactly why it seems to me that there isn't much about the perpetrator's illness that is relevant to recovery.

I honestly believe that too much time spent on the whys or wherefores of the perpetrator can really distract from the healing process.

Psychopaths are dangerous, sure. Sociopaths are dangerous. Criminals are dangerous. People are dangerous, period.

Look: anything that helps, helps. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter how any of us learn to forgive ourselves, stop blaming ourselves, understand and accept that we were not the cause - whatever - we just have to get there. But then, we have to move on.

And the danger, I think, is that one can become obsessed with the perpetrator - this becomes even more difficult when they are still involved in your life - and this obsession turns entirely into working out a lot of anger on them, and never getting around to the bit where you just have to deal with damaged, tricked, wounded, battered you. Not them. You. Me. Us.

Anyway, it's just strange to me that so much weight is being placed on the name of "psychopath" and so little weight is placed on having known your perpetrator in advance - which is what everyone talking about needing to identify and understand psychopaths is talking about.

Anyway - everyone's experience is totally valid. I will remain a person who was probably harmed by "psychopaths" who does not care one iota what they were, DSM-ically speaking.