Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeReading PeopleHow psychopaths think

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How psychopaths think

#1 · September 18, 2023, 1:24 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 18, 2023, 1:24 pm
Hello TPM community,
A reflection on psychopaths:
watching some parts of "silence of the lambs", "red dragon" and listening to the interview from Howard Stern I posted recently I understand them better.
I think there is a misconception: that psychopaths have no feelings. They have feelings. They just don't have feelings for other people. That's why they can use them as means to an end. I believe they definitely can feel joy, anger, sadness and especially power.
The difference is that since they don't get the feed-back loop on how other people are feeling on their own nervous system, they live in a World of 100% selfishness.
For instance, if a normal mother hurts a child unintentionally, she will feel hurt when the child is crying. The psychopathic mother won't feel a thing. However, she will feel something if the child is escaping her control, insults her or anything of that nature. So in this case the child is an instrument for her own pleasure.
That's why I believe these people can love as well. They love people for how they make them feel but not for who they are. They don't love people in the sense that they wish the best for them. They love people in the only sense that they make them feel good. I think it's a subtle difference but it explains why they can say "I love you" but the person does not feel loved.
I think the closest we can imagine as non-psychopathic people is how we love one of our t-shirt. We love the t-shirt but it's just a t-shirt. We don't love the t-shirt for the t-shirt's sake. We don't put it in our cupboard well-folded for the t-shirt. We do all this for us. We love the t-shirt because the t-shirt has a nice logo and we feel cool in it. It's instrumental.
I think that's the difference. I think these people mean it when they say they love someone. But who wants to be loved like a t-shirt?
For them people and things are the same. So it's their reality and perspective. So everything they say and feel is filtered through this. So they cannot imagine that other people can see the World in a different perspective. Just like it's so hard for us to imagine how they see the World.
For them I imagine they think that when people say they love someone for who they are (of course it makes everyone feel good to love) they think it's hypocritical. They cannot imagine that someone wants the best for someone else and don't get anything in return. They probably think that unconditional love is bullshit.
They are stuck at the material aspect of the human experience. The World as a collection of things.
Just like for instance some Christian people cannot imagine what it's like to live in a World as an atheist.
Off-topic
Thank you Lucio for your recommendation of the book "the Wisdom of psychopaths". Definitely deserves its rank in your list of books about power. It changed my mindset for good. It opened my mind to new possibilities. Especially how to be ruthlessly analytical and logical about goals and strategies.
I understand that it's a powerful mindset that can be used for good. The trick is that now there is a new responsibility: are we going to inject good in those strategies? And if yes how?
For instance with my colleague I decided to be good. I think in the past I was more emotionally reactive. The following is a bit of an exaggeration of course. I was being mean when people were mean with me or if I wanted to hurt someone. And I was being good by default or to be submissive or to please or because my value system or because the judeo-christian system.
Now I feel more free to choose when and how to be good. And it's a good thing because it means I'm less manipulable to serve someone's interest as they hijack my value system. For instance when manipulators play the pity-game or the victim or guilt-tripping. They all play on the desire to be or seen as good. When one does not need this anymore, one is less manipulable.
/Off-topic
I take the liberty to put here Power Duck's answer:
Quote from Power Duck on September 16, 2023, 9:53 am
They are stuck at the material aspect of the human experience. The World as a collection of things.
.....
For them people and things are the same. So it's their reality and perspective. So everything they say and feel is filtered through this. So they cannot imagine that other people can see the World in a different perspective. Just like it's so hard for us to imagine how they see the World.
Cheers John.
Lately I've been listening to an audiobook about psychopaths (unfortunately it has no translation: "Mi jefe es un psicópata"/"My boss is a psychopath") I find it to be pretty good and interesting, there's lots of points I hadn't seen before, (e.g: children who aren't taught discipline and get all they want are very likely to become psychopaths in the future, as they get accustomed to see people as means to getting what they want)
And I would like to add something to the 2nd thing you said in the quote, I don't think that all psychopaths don't know that others view people as people rather than objects.
Of course I think that most psychopaths do as you say: specially those who were brought into the world with neurological changes that conditioned them to be psychopaths as well as having family issues since young.
However (and I'm sure you probably know this) many psychopaths are completely normal people that got f* up by toxic individuals so many times that became desensitized, that or they were manipulated by another psychopath/psychopathic organisation and assumed psychopathic traits.
Edit: There's also that psychopaths learn everything from the environment, specially when they go to therapy, so a psychopath could learn about the fact that most people don't see each other's as object or as least learn about that social rule/norm. Of course there are many psychopaths and many variables, I think it's better not to put them all into a box.
I think that there are no absolutes here, unfortunately many psychopaths know perfectly well what is wrong and what is good, but they don't care.
Agreed pretty much about everything else.
Cheers.
P.S:
I'm lately experiencing with being more dominant and less power protecting, if you spot any disempowering frames feel free to post about it.
& already started reading the book you told me about love, mind blowing to say the least. Thanks.
Forgot to add: *that's what I think about the matter

Hello TPM community,

A reflection on psychopaths:

watching some parts of "silence of the lambs", "red dragon" and listening to the interview from Howard Stern I posted recently I understand them better.

I think there is a misconception: that psychopaths have no feelings. They have feelings. They just don't have feelings for other people. That's why they can use them as means to an end. I believe they definitely can feel joy, anger, sadness and especially power.

The difference is that since they don't get the feed-back loop on how other people are feeling on their own nervous system, they live in a World of 100% selfishness.

For instance, if a normal mother hurts a child unintentionally, she will feel hurt when the child is crying. The psychopathic mother won't feel a thing. However, she will feel something if the child is escaping her control, insults her or anything of that nature. So in this case the child is an instrument for her own pleasure.

That's why I believe these people can love as well. They love people for how they make them feel but not for who they are. They don't love people in the sense that they wish the best for them. They love people in the only sense that they make them feel good. I think it's a subtle difference but it explains why they can say "I love you" but the person does not feel loved.

I think the closest we can imagine as non-psychopathic people is how we love one of our t-shirt. We love the t-shirt but it's just a t-shirt. We don't love the t-shirt for the t-shirt's sake. We don't put it in our cupboard well-folded for the t-shirt. We do all this for us. We love the t-shirt because the t-shirt has a nice logo and we feel cool in it. It's instrumental.

I think that's the difference. I think these people mean it when they say they love someone. But who wants to be loved like a t-shirt?

For them people and things are the same. So it's their reality and perspective. So everything they say and feel is filtered through this. So they cannot imagine that other people can see the World in a different perspective. Just like it's so hard for us to imagine how they see the World.

For them I imagine they think that when people say they love someone for who they are (of course it makes everyone feel good to love) they think it's hypocritical. They cannot imagine that someone wants the best for someone else and don't get anything in return. They probably think that unconditional love is bullshit.

They are stuck at the material aspect of the human experience. The World as a collection of things.

Just like for instance some Christian people cannot imagine what it's like to live in a World as an atheist.

Off-topic

Thank you Lucio for your recommendation of the book "the Wisdom of psychopaths". Definitely deserves its rank in your list of books about power. It changed my mindset for good. It opened my mind to new possibilities. Especially how to be ruthlessly analytical and logical about goals and strategies.

I understand that it's a powerful mindset that can be used for good. The trick is that now there is a new responsibility: are we going to inject good in those strategies? And if yes how?

For instance with my colleague I decided to be good. I think in the past I was more emotionally reactive. The following is a bit of an exaggeration of course. I was being mean when people were mean with me or if I wanted to hurt someone. And I was being good by default or to be submissive or to please or because my value system or because the judeo-christian system.

Now I feel more free to choose when and how to be good. And it's a good thing because it means I'm less manipulable to serve someone's interest as they hijack my value system. For instance when manipulators play the pity-game or the victim or guilt-tripping. They all play on the desire to be or seen as good. When one does not need this anymore, one is less manipulable.

/Off-topic

I take the liberty to put here Power Duck's answer:

Quote from Power Duck on September 16, 2023, 9:53 am

They are stuck at the material aspect of the human experience. The World as a collection of things.

.....

Cheers John.

Lately I've been listening to an audiobook about psychopaths (unfortunately it has no translation: "Mi jefe es un psicópata"/"My boss is a psychopath") I find it to be pretty good and interesting, there's lots of points I hadn't seen before, (e.g: children who aren't taught discipline and get all they want are very likely to become psychopaths in the future, as they get accustomed to see people as means to getting what they want)

And I would like to add something to the 2nd thing you said in the quote, I don't think that all psychopaths don't know that others view people as people rather than objects.

Of course I think that most psychopaths do as you say: specially those who were brought into the world with neurological changes that conditioned them to be psychopaths as well as having family issues since young.

However (and I'm sure you probably know this) many psychopaths are completely normal people that got f* up by toxic individuals so many times that became desensitized, that or they were manipulated by another psychopath/psychopathic organisation and assumed psychopathic traits.

Edit: There's also that psychopaths learn everything from the environment, specially when they go to therapy, so a psychopath could learn about the fact that most people don't see each other's as object or as least learn about that social rule/norm. Of course there are many psychopaths and many variables, I think it's better not to put them all into a box.

I think that there are no absolutes here, unfortunately many psychopaths know perfectly well what is wrong and what is good, but they don't care.

Agreed pretty much about everything else.

Cheers.

P.S:

I'm lately experiencing with being more dominant and less power protecting, if you spot any disempowering frames feel free to post about it.

& already started reading the book you told me about love, mind blowing to say the least. Thanks.

Forgot to add: *that's what I think about the matter

Roberto and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#2 · September 18, 2023, 1:27 pm

Thank you very much Power Duck for your answer! I agree with you.

Off-topic

I'm glad the book speaks to you :)

/Off-topic

Power Duck has reacted to this post.

#3 · September 18, 2023, 2:03 pm

Quote from B on September 18, 2023, 2:03 pm
This is a very interesting thread.
There are some books written by Kazimierz Dąbrowski where he expounds the theory of "positive disintegration".
I may be wrong in some respects here in expounding this theory, as I am going by heart.
Essentially, the theory is that people are born in a state of "relative narcissism/certainty" in how their beliefs and psychological defenses are "integrated" in their psyche. This state is however both "closed", to shield from pain, and liable to cause "pain" to the person (who will see that reality will not correspond to their narcissistic beliefs).
Through life, people undergo progressive crises. Some of the people who undergo this crisis have a spiritual awakening, and they are able to "disintegrate" their beliefs and psychological defenses, and accept to revise their point of view to ascend to higher states of "more psychological openness" and "less defenses". They will undergo "successive reintegrations at a higher level". Essentially, they will evolve.
On the contrary, some people are either born in a non-movable, forcefully (dis-)integrated state of "full narcissism/no conscience and no empathy", or develop such a state through early trauma. The psyche of these people is irreversibly fused in a totally narcissistic and solipsistic worldview, where only the ego counts and all others are viewed as instruments to the ego, and where psychological defenses are upped to the maximum level possible.
These are the dark triads, who Dabrowski believed to have the most basic form of self-consciousness: no capability for personal reflection, projection on others of all negative impulses, no capability to change whatsoever.
In other words, "narcissism" is a type of personality structure where, instead of disintegrating one's beliefs and worldview to match reality, the person chooses to REINFORCE his own egoic worldview by manipulating and twisting other people's reality so that reality matches their own beliefs and worldview as much as possible.
The point of this theory is that it does seem to work in explaining the inner world of psychopaths, if we assume that psychopaths are the "most narcissistic people possible" (more narcissistic than narcissists, and for sure than a normally insecure, non-integrated person).
If we assume the highest possible form of narcissism, then everything makes sense:
they will interpret everything other people do as an attack on them, and will covertly strike preemptively and retaliate for anything that happens, including for innocuous things;
they will hate all others passionately as a projection of their own inner hate, and backwards justify this hate by provoking other people to disrespect them so they have a justification for their hate;
they will resent other people having even 1/10 of the success/things they have, thus displaying a heightened ultra-form of envy, upped to the max;
they will constantly sabotage the success of everyone beside them;
they will rationalize everything they do in any possible scenario;
they will project all blame on others, and take credit for everything that goes good;
they will frequently fantasize retaliating and harming other people for the slightest things;
they will interpret all kindness as weakness;
they will not have any capacity for long-term thinking whatsoever. Their short-term impulses will always override any negative consequence they are likely to suffer as a result of their actions (although some of them do develop a capacity to soften this aspect).
While the above may seem far-fetched to someone who has not experienced close relationships with them, people who have had prolonged personal exposure usually do attest to all these things.
Hence, the need for psychopaths to wear "masks". They fully know that what they think and how they reason would put them outside the human society, if they were to show it to the world.
EDIT: Another important point: the masks are adopted by psychopaths even in cases where they decide (ie are forced) to "go public".
The issue is that those who have to "go public" with their psychopathy is that, although they like to romanticize it by mentioning that they "decided to do so", in most cases the reality is that they were forced to do so.
This in turn explains how most of the things these people say and write is, in fact, a mask itself.
Common masks of these kind are:
"I used to behave badly in the past, but now I changed"
"Psychopaths do not harm others, they respect others unless harm is done to them"
"Having a touch of psychopathy is useful for normal people"
But, alas, psychopaths by definition cannot "turn their traits on or off".
They always have them, precisely because "psychopathy" is defined as an irreversible mental "disposition", or "personality disorder" if you prefer.
Here is a good interview to Martha Stout about one of Dutton's books:
https://newrepublic.com/article/111087/wisdom-of-psychopaths-kevin-dutton

This is a very interesting thread.

There are some books written by Kazimierz Dąbrowski where he expounds the theory of "positive disintegration".

I may be wrong in some respects here in expounding this theory, as I am going by heart.

Essentially, the theory is that people are born in a state of "relative narcissism/certainty" in how their beliefs and psychological defenses are "integrated" in their psyche. This state is however both "closed", to shield from pain, and liable to cause "pain" to the person (who will see that reality will not correspond to their narcissistic beliefs).

Through life, people undergo progressive crises. Some of the people who undergo this crisis have a spiritual awakening, and they are able to "disintegrate" their beliefs and psychological defenses, and accept to revise their point of view to ascend to higher states of "more psychological openness" and "less defenses". They will undergo "successive reintegrations at a higher level". Essentially, they will evolve.

On the contrary, some people are either born in a non-movable, forcefully (dis-)integrated state of "full narcissism/no conscience and no empathy", or develop such a state through early trauma. The psyche of these people is irreversibly fused in a totally narcissistic and solipsistic worldview, where only the ego counts and all others are viewed as instruments to the ego, and where psychological defenses are upped to the maximum level possible.

These are the dark triads, who Dabrowski believed to have the most basic form of self-consciousness: no capability for personal reflection, projection on others of all negative impulses, no capability to change whatsoever.

In other words, "narcissism" is a type of personality structure where, instead of disintegrating one's beliefs and worldview to match reality, the person chooses to REINFORCE his own egoic worldview by manipulating and twisting other people's reality so that reality matches their own beliefs and worldview as much as possible.

The point of this theory is that it does seem to work in explaining the inner world of psychopaths, if we assume that psychopaths are the "most narcissistic people possible" (more narcissistic than narcissists, and for sure than a normally insecure, non-integrated person).

If we assume the highest possible form of narcissism, then everything makes sense:

they will interpret everything other people do as an attack on them, and will covertly strike preemptively and retaliate for anything that happens, including for innocuous things;
they will hate all others passionately as a projection of their own inner hate, and backwards justify this hate by provoking other people to disrespect them so they have a justification for their hate;
they will resent other people having even 1/10 of the success/things they have, thus displaying a heightened ultra-form of envy, upped to the max;
they will constantly sabotage the success of everyone beside them;
they will rationalize everything they do in any possible scenario;
they will project all blame on others, and take credit for everything that goes good;
they will frequently fantasize retaliating and harming other people for the slightest things;
they will interpret all kindness as weakness;
they will not have any capacity for long-term thinking whatsoever. Their short-term impulses will always override any negative consequence they are likely to suffer as a result of their actions (although some of them do develop a capacity to soften this aspect).

While the above may seem far-fetched to someone who has not experienced close relationships with them, people who have had prolonged personal exposure usually do attest to all these things.

Hence, the need for psychopaths to wear "masks". They fully know that what they think and how they reason would put them outside the human society, if they were to show it to the world.

EDIT: Another important point: the masks are adopted by psychopaths even in cases where they decide (ie are forced) to "go public".

The issue is that those who have to "go public" with their psychopathy is that, although they like to romanticize it by mentioning that they "decided to do so", in most cases the reality is that they were forced to do so.

This in turn explains how most of the things these people say and write is, in fact, a mask itself.

Common masks of these kind are:

"I used to behave badly in the past, but now I changed"
"Psychopaths do not harm others, they respect others unless harm is done to them"
"Having a touch of psychopathy is useful for normal people"

But, alas, psychopaths by definition cannot "turn their traits on or off".

They always have them, precisely because "psychopathy" is defined as an irreversible mental "disposition", or "personality disorder" if you prefer.

Here is a good interview to Martha Stout about one of Dutton's books:

https://newrepublic.com/article/111087/wisdom-of-psychopaths-kevin-dutton

John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#4 · September 18, 2023, 2:20 pm

This is an awesome post, thanks for sharing Bel.

I agree 100% with everything.

In pediatrics we know that the child is a natural state of narcissism until about 5 years old. Then he can have more empathy and consider other people’s feelings.

B and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#5 · September 18, 2023, 3:43 pm

Quote from Power Duck on September 18, 2023, 3:43 pm
Quoting Bel:
Essentially, the theory is that people are born in a state of "relative narcissism/certainty" in how their beliefs and psychological defenses are "integrated" in their psyche. This state is however both "closed", to shield from pain, and liable to cause "pain" to the person (who will see that reality will not correspond to their narcissistic beliefs).
....
On the contrary, some people are either born in a non-movable, forcefully (dis-)integrated state of "full narcissism/no conscience and no empathy", or develop such a state through early trauma. The psyche of these people is irreversibly fused in a totally narcissistic and solipsistic worldview, where only the ego counts and all others are viewed as instruments to the ego, and where psychological defenses are upped to the maximum level possible.
If I remember correctly, this is called subclinical psychopathy, which as you point out consist in naturally presenting personality traits related to psychopathy and other dark triad traits. Most of these people wouldn't be classified as dark triads if they were tested, but they could become one (specially if they are in toxic households or have negative live experiences) and will cause harm to those around them, this includes value takers/social climbers/abusers/manipulators, etc.
Many people who say that they behave bad because they were stabbed in the back, may do so mostly because of personality traits rather than because of life experiences, that or they are lying. Said in another way they may be predisposed/"destined" to react in such a way to negative live experiences
This in turn explains how most of the things these people say and write is, in fact, a mask itself.
Common masks of these kind are:
"I used to behave badly in the past, but now I changed"
"Psychopaths do not harm others, they respect others unless harm is done to them"
"Having a touch of psychopathy is useful for normal people"
But, alas, psychopaths by definition cannot "turn their traits on or off".
Its curious, talking about dark triads: if you remember the manipulative girl I talked some time ago, well she has made multiple statements as the ones you wrote, in which she justifies her antisocial and value taking behaviour or presents the behaviour/beliefs she has (but she doesnt say that she has them directly) in a useful/positive/rational light:
I used to be really really bad bad but I completely remade my personality.
Most people are bad, and we have to know how to play the game to get far in life.
etc.
OFF TOPIC
Machs in organizations take the "excuse-making" you point out even further, they use those statements/justifications to promote a culture of "effectiveness over people" thus reinforcing antisocial behaviour onto others. Psychopaths do this too.
END OFF TOPIC
I didn't knew many of the things you point out, thanks Bel. Thanks for the article too, will give it a look.
Those are my views on the topic.
Cheers.
P.S:
By the way, thanks for creating the post John, I had forgotten about opening it so we could discuss more about such an interesting matter.

Quoting Bel:
Essentially, the theory is that people are born in a state of "relative narcissism/certainty" in how their beliefs and psychological defenses are "integrated" in their psyche. This state is however both "closed", to shield from pain, and liable to cause "pain" to the person (who will see that reality will not correspond to their narcissistic beliefs).
....
On the contrary, some people are either born in a non-movable, forcefully (dis-)integrated state of "full narcissism/no conscience and no empathy", or develop such a state through early trauma. The psyche of these people is irreversibly fused in a totally narcissistic and solipsistic worldview, where only the ego counts and all others are viewed as instruments to the ego, and where psychological defenses are upped to the maximum level possible.

If I remember correctly, this is called subclinical psychopathy, which as you point out consist in naturally presenting personality traits related to psychopathy and other dark triad traits. Most of these people wouldn't be classified as dark triads if they were tested, but they could become one (specially if they are in toxic households or have negative live experiences) and will cause harm to those around them, this includes value takers/social climbers/abusers/manipulators, etc.

Many people who say that they behave bad because they were stabbed in the back, may do so mostly because of personality traits rather than because of life experiences, that or they are lying. Said in another way they may be predisposed/"destined" to react in such a way to negative live experiences

This in turn explains how most of the things these people say and write is, in fact, a mask itself.
Common masks of these kind are:
"I used to behave badly in the past, but now I changed"
"Psychopaths do not harm others, they respect others unless harm is done to them"
"Having a touch of psychopathy is useful for normal people"
But, alas, psychopaths by definition cannot "turn their traits on or off".

Its curious, talking about dark triads: if you remember the manipulative girl I talked some time ago, well she has made multiple statements as the ones you wrote, in which she justifies her antisocial and value taking behaviour or presents the behaviour/beliefs she has (but she doesnt say that she has them directly) in a useful/positive/rational light:

I used to be really really bad bad but I completely remade my personality.
Most people are bad, and we have to know how to play the game to get far in life.
etc.

OFF TOPIC

Machs in organizations take the "excuse-making" you point out even further, they use those statements/justifications to promote a culture of "effectiveness over people" thus reinforcing antisocial behaviour onto others. Psychopaths do this too.

END OFF TOPIC

I didn't knew many of the things you point out, thanks Bel. Thanks for the article too, will give it a look.

Those are my views on the topic.

Cheers.

P.S:

By the way, thanks for creating the post John, I had forgotten about opening it so we could discuss more about such an interesting matter.

John Freeman and Roberto have reacted to this post.