Therapist Clueless About Sociopaths

[shimmerz]

Thick.

 

[Pencil]

Dana1010 wasn't arguing. She was defending her viewpoint, which I regard as a perfectly valid one, against endless vivisection and endless debate and hairsplitting that turned one hair into something that looked like a ripe dandelion seed. And just when I thought everybody who had something irrelevant to contribute finally got over it ... it started all over again. Sheeeesh.

 

[Dana1010]

Seven pages of debate makes me think that the OP isn't satisfied with the responses she is getting.

You would be wrong. This is just a really important topic to me, and the validation and even the challenges I've received from posters have been interesting and educational to me. There is very little validation available out there for people who have been psychologically battered by psychopaths. The exchange typically goes something like this: "I had a psychopath in my life once." "Oh, you mean like he was an assh*le?" "No, I don't mean he was an assh*ole, I mean he was a psychopath. Never mind."

Unfortunately most therapists aren't much better. They have typically considered psychopaths the criminologist's area of concern. The idea of psychopaths in daily life is becoming more mainstream, but it's still far from common knowledge. I've found talking to other victims is one of the only ways to get any kind of processing done as talking to others about it is like talking about the color green to people who've never seen it. So, that's what the seven pages are for; we're just happy to have a place to discuss a topic that isn't well understood elsewhere, kind of like PTSD.

 

[Ed Norton]

First let me say that I was attacked and tortured by psychopaths (whether innate or learned) makes no difference. Furthermore, God himself could come down and tell me that they didn't have antisocial personality disorder, and I simply wouldn't care.

Regarding "delivery" I think that it does make a difference, if my trauma were merely an overreaction by the police, they wouldn't have gone so far. They may have still tazed me but they held the tazer there for about 45 seconds. They may have still cuffed me but they put two pairs of cuffs on extremely tight. And then there was the taunting and death threats. So it does in my opinion make a difference with respect to delivery.

However, if the outcome were, for argument's sake, the same then of course the final result would have been the same. But, it is highly doubtful that the outcome would have been the same, if they didn't have antisocial personality disorder, namely, psychopathy.

Just like if someone hit you with a car by accident or on purpose, the final result would of course be the same. However, only someone with antisocial personality disorder would do it on purpose. They then might get out of the car and spit on you, but that's another matter.

All this being said, I agree with @Solara That you have a terrible and invalidating T and I think that is the key issue at hand.

P.S. It seems that the exposure therapy is working cuz this is the second time today that I went into some finite detail regarding my trauma, without being triggered.

 

[joeylittle]

just when I thought everybody who had something irrelevant to contribute finally got over it ... it started all over again.

If everyone who had something irrelevant to contribute stopped contributing, there would be no internet.

Seriously though, this is not (nor, as far as I can tell, has it ever been) a "yes-man" kind of site. @Dana1010 posed a question. The question generated lots of connection, debate, disagreement, validation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's supposed to work.

I've found talking to other victims is one of the only ways to get any kind of processing done as talking to others about it is like talking about the color green to people who've never seen it.

I think that is a great outcome, always. And if you want a more focused conversation, I'd suggest starting a thread in the Miscellaneous category of Trauma and Stressors specifically dedicated to people who have experienced the kind of abuse you are describing. Otherwise, it's no-one's responsibility to abstain from a thread they disagree with; all points of view are welcome. (That's not specifically directed at you, @Dana1010, just the universe.)

And I'm talking as a member, not staff.

 

[shimmerz]

It isn't about the delivery. I agree with @Ed Norton 's posting if that was what this was the theme of the OP's posting. It isn't. It is about the longevity. Trauma after trauma after trauma that is relentless and needing therapists, responders, support that understands the nature of this.

 

[Pencil]

Yes, and just as a trauma therapist is needed for PTSD, a therapist well versed in the shenanigans of sociopath is needed if the trauma is caused by a sociopath. OR, if CSA is the cause of PTSD, then the therapist has to have knowledge and experience of CSA, and not combat.

 

[Dana1010]

It is about the longevity. Trauma after trauma after trauma

It no doubt is for many people. However, for me it's more longevity in terms of how long the con was carried out for, how long I remained hoodwinked, how much it bled from me, and the stunning, breathtaking moment of realization that the world you were living in for the last x-amount-of-time was never real.

 

[Ed Norton]

@Dana1010 I think that your T should respect that fact and treat you accordingly. I'm sorry she is so invalidating. Your PTSD needs to bemanaged iindividually. Those are your feelings and your T should respect that.

 

[Friday]

Yep, that's how it looks. I think everyone on this thread who has experience with sociopaths readily acknowledges that they're different; not so much people but a force of nature like a tornado, and all you can do is stay out of their path.

I feel like unless someone has experienced this type of abuse (and I can see this by this posting definitively), that this is beyond most people's comprehension - no matter how compassionate they may be. I can feel those that are posting that have survived this stuff. There is a knowing, an understanding, an authenticity that comes when speaking about this type of experience.

It makes me sad that those who have been traumatized in different ways can't just trust that this experience is real for us, in the way we are describing without a general denial and dismissal by others.

- I was married to (and abused off and on by) a psychopath more than 10 years, (fully diagnosed... From textbook childhood hell on earth, triad of sociopathy, to adult up ticking cycles of violence and genius level acumen thrown in just for shits and giggles. Not all psychopaths are clever. Just my bad luck to marry one that was), where my entire focus for years was to keep him in his lower level cycles. Sometimes with his cooperation, most of the time without.

- I have kind of a "thing" for sociopaths. Similar to my thing for Aspies. Clearly, I don't like all sociopaths (although that is the rule of thumb: that you will never meet a sociopath you don't like, this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about long term I find the disorder both relaxing and enervating. I have no idea what they see in me, but the attraction seems mutual) just as I don't like all Aspies. But those disorders and I get on for various reasons. I do not get on with psychopaths. "Flavor"-wise sociopaths and psychopaths are fundamentally different. ((My ex and I were a total accident/misjudgement on my part. I had no idea he was a psychopath. When I did finally twig, I mistook him for a sociopath, which gave me a false sense of security. As I said, sociopaths and I gel, not psychopaths)).

- I spent 7 years working in war zones & countries in conflict... First in the military, then with NGOs. I have extensive points of contact both with true 'paths... As well as otherwise perfectly normal people who exhibit the same symptoms all y'all are talking about either for brief periods of time, either situationally or in relation to their job.

The thing that drives me absolutely nuts is the assumption that "if you don't agree with me, you obviously have never experienced XYZ". Yes. I have. In fact, I would hazard to guess that most of the people disagreeing on this thread have had intimate contact with either psychopaths, sociopaths, or both. Theyre not sexy disorders to stand up and defend... Because there really are some truly evil people with one or the other. But squares and rectangles, not all people who are 'paths are evil. They simply aren't. And as pointed out by those with better statistical data, it's not even the majority of 'paths -or people exhibiting 'pathic behaviors- who are evil.

Similarly... While being abused or traumatized by a 'path may be the worst thing ever for some people -never argued with that, people all have their different markers- it's also not universal. I'm far far far more bothered by other traumas in my life &/or other aspects of traumas by 'paths. Even in the "things done to me" category (I have 3 categories of trauma: things done to me, things I've done, and things I didn't do). Whether or not the person hurting me knows what they're doing is 'morally wrong', will now -or ever- feel badly for doing it, etc. simply doesn't matter to me. ((Which is also why I said way back in the beginning, that it is our own reactions to what happened that are interesting. Why does their being 'pathic matter? Thats the interesting part. The part that's useful.))

While the personality -or pathology- of your abuser may be the most traumatic thing for one person... It doesn't follow that that's true for everyone, nor does it invalidate your own trauma because people are affected differently.

 

[Pencil]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's supposed to work.

Let me use an example. Imagine being on a travel site. Somebody posts, saying 'I think I'd like to spend my annual holiday on ABC island. Has anyone been there? Can you recommend it? Any advice?' Some of the people who have spent a holiday there will say it was marvelous, others will say it was so-so, and some will say it was a holiday from hell - and then they will compare notes - those who had a wonderful time did so because they went there in winter, and loved the skiing, whereas one person went there in summer and hated the mosquitoes. Now that is a useful conversation. The trouble starts when people who have NEVER been to ABC island start chipping in with comments such as: 'I looked on the map, and this looks like a really shitty island in the middle of nowhere. I hate islands. I think you are an idiot for wanting to go there. You really should rather go to New York.' Then there's an argument about New York. Then someone else says traveling is dangerous due to terrorism. Then ...

So no, I don't expect everyone to agree. But I do expect people to get what the post is really about and to actually refrain from commenting when they don't have something useful to contribute. And I'm not saying everybody who didn't agree did not have something useful to contribute, it's just that vacationing on ABC island has not really been explored.

@Dana1010 your interpersonal skill is admirable. (If I come across as patronizing, please forgive me.)

 

[Dana1010]

not all people who are 'paths are evil. They simply aren't.

I guess it depends on who's defining "evil." They don't see what they do as evil, but merely feeding themselves. Also, how on earth would one study this? Have they done interviews with all the people the psychopath has known over a lifetime? Or did most of the psychopaths who were asked, "Are you evil?" say no? Imagine that. In order to be diagnosed as a psychopath, you have agree with statements like the following : "Life is survival of the fittest - I'm not in the least worried about the losers." So most people who get an A on a test essentially measuring evil are not evil?