When Others Don't Like The 'P' Word

by Sandra L. Brown, M.A.

I was recently asked to be on a national TV show to discuss the issue of psychopathy in relationships based on my book 'Women Who Love Psychopaths.' They had looked at the website, read information about the book, discussed what the rest of the show was going to be about, and booked me for the show. They didn't invite me based on my other book (although equally as informational) How to Spot a Dangerous Man, they booked me to discuss and showed the book cover of, Women Who Love Psychopaths.

However, 20 minutes before going on air a producer told me 'they' (whoever that is in TV world) was uncomfortable using the 'p' word--psychopath. They found the word to be 'controversial' and 'sensationalistic' and that my example of probably well known public psychopaths who are not recognized as psychopathic was too debatable and unproveable to discuss.

This was of course sad for me to hear since so much of what The Institute attempts to provide is public pathology education. Truly the only way for people to avoid psychopathy is to develop the ability to understand the traits and learn to spot it in others. All which is why our goal for this agency is public education. This is of course, not our first time to hear that the 'p' word is offensive, debatable, controversial, or judgmental, and it will not be the last time, unfortunately.

Several victims of incredible psychopathic abuse were also on the show and I was asked to comment on their cases but also asked to not use the 'p' word. I asked the producer what she thought those perpetrator's behaviors should be called, or what disorders would motivate their behavior....or what was she suggesting I 'should' call them? I told her I was at a loss to pick another label or motivation behind their lethal behaviors that would come close to helping others understand 'who does that?'. I told her that psychopathy was a diagnosis, not merely a political argument, a theoretical ideology, or even a criminal judgment of character. I was confused as to why I was there when what I do, what I write about, who I help, and who I help convict are overtly obvious from my professional background and from our website.

I was reminded again when I heard 'the p word' is controversial, that public pathology education is still in it's infancy. I know that victims face this all the time when they struggle to figure out what is wrong with the pathological person, only to discover the shocking revelation of the person's disorder. But the victim trying to teach others what is wrong with the pathological is counteracted when others find the information to be disputable, distasteful, unproveable, unlikely, and un-spiritual to even suggest.

The 'p' word is now viewed as the new psychological slur of the 21st century. It's correlated with the devastating racial slurs of the 1950's, the cultural slurs of the 60's-70's, and the gay/lesbian slurs of the 80's-90's. Now, we face the 'p' word the way we faced the 'n' of the 50's and the 'f' or the 60'70's and the 'q' of the 80-90s. But with a huge difference! There is nothing wrong with the 'p' word the way it was intensely wrong with the 'n,' 'f,' and 'q' words of decades gone by.

But it is treated as if we are being racially insensitive, culturally inappropriate, or gender ignorant. We are looked at as the skin-heads of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that we would 'dare' to 'call someone' a psychopath. We are viewed as the rock throwers at the psychologically-disabled
people with pathology, the Bible thumpers of the poor spiritually disenfranchised psychopath, and the socially clueless that we would spew a power-packing psychological label like 'psychopathy' around that might actually strike and land on a human being.

I know, I know....afterall, it's daytime TV which we all recognize is about ratings and keeping pace with society's Attention-Deficit-Disordered need for topics to be covered in three minutes no matter how riveting the storyline is. Daytime TV covers tsunamis of natural science as well as the tsunamis of psychological trauma in the same fast fall swoop of selling hair dye and lipstick in the same 30 minute segment. What did I expect afterall?

...Well, I always hope that a victim's trauma is recognized and embraced for the emotional and spiritual strength it took to not only survive, but to show up on that TV stage to tell their story to help others. ...Well, I always hope that the need to teach others 'how to spot' the devastating disorders that created the victims trauma is the guiding motivation behind why TV shows exist and supercedes the mere 'storyline-as-business' of TV.

Yes, I recognize that daytime TV is not the spokes person for the planet--that there ARE those who really want to hear more of the victims story and learn more about 'how to spot' them in their own lives....but I have to tell you, it IS a 'cold-water-splash-in-the-face', like a 'wake-up-Sandra-we-aren't-as-far-as-you-think' call that we are whispering the 'p' word behind stage and off camera and are 'editing it out' for public viewing. The whole segment of discussion about low empathy, no conscience and "who does that" was removed. Not one word that explained the behavior of those lethal people was 'leaked' to the viewing audience for public pathology education. We still have miles and miles to go in educating the public that psychopathy is a disorder not a verbal tyriad.

You know what....as offensive, debatable, controversial, judgmental, OR .... as disputable, distasteful, unproveable, unlikely and un-spiritual as it felt to those merely producing a nano-second based TV show to say the 'p' word, the victims who have lived with the 'p' are the true authorities here. They would probably beg to disagree with the nay-sayers that the 'p' is a profound psychological slur. I am sure the victims found the 'p's behavior to be more offensive than TV-land will ever understand. The victims surely wrestled with their own need to over come the 'debatable-ness' of the disorder, or the controversy that swirled around the lethal behaviors of the psychopath and I am sure the victim's incured their own judgmental views of outsiders. I doubt today the victim's find their story to be un proveable or even disputable ---after all, some of these storys ended up in murder or attempted more. All adjectives that are associated with psychopathy.

As 'controversial' as TV-land felt the 'p' word was, does not even compare to the victim's overwhelming need to shout from the roof-tops what the pathological IS....a psychopath.

Using the 'p' word of psychopathy is not a slur. It is a education, a prevention, a DIAGNOSIS, and the reality for millions of victims in the world.

Sandra L. Brown, M.A. is the Founder and CEO of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education.  She is the author of several best selling books, including How to Spot a Dangerous Man and Why Women Love Psychopaths. www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com

Related articles

• Mutual Pathology: Gasoline and Fire (timesupblog.blogspot.com)
• Doc Bonn Explains: The Difference Between a Sociopath and a Psychopath (docbonn.wordpress.com)
• The psychopath: Facts and research resources (drjezphillips.wordpress.com)
• Psychopaths Everywhere? (psychologytoday.com)
• Who Does That? Part 2 (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)
• Genetic and Neuro-Physiological Basis for Hyper-Empathy (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)

Mutual Pathology: Gasoline and Fire

by Sandra L. Brown, M.A.

Pathology is a mental health issue, not a gender issue. Women have just as much pathology in some areas of personality disorders, as men do in other areas of personality disorders. Some of the 10 personality disorders present more in men, while some of the disorders present more in women.

As you have heard me say over the years, pathology is pathology – meaning that each personality disorder has it’s own problems and challenges in relationships, but mainly holds to the central three aspects that I talk about related to pathology:

1. The inability to grow to any true emotional or spiritual depth.
2. The inability to consistently sustain positive change.
3. The inability to have insight about how one’s behavior negatively
affects others.

Given those three aspects of personality disorders, we can easily see how each of the different types of personality disorders can be linked together by these three ‘inabilities.’

While men may be more bent towards Anti-Social Personality Disorder or psychopathy, women may show more of a bent towards Histrionic, Dependent, or Borderline Personality Disorder. When you have a man with a personality disorder coupled with a personality disordered women – it equals Jerry Springer Dynamics!

There is no guarantee that there is only one pathological in the relationship. Women have just as much mental illness, addictions, and personality disorders as men. It’s quite common for people with a personality disorder to hook up with another disordered individual. When this happens you have two people who can’t grow to any true depth emotionally or spiritually, two people who can’t sustain positive change, and two people who don’t have insight about how their behavior affects others. These relationships are dramatic fire-beds of emotionality, addiction, and violence.

Women’s pathology is just as damaging to men as men’s pathology is to women. Women’s pathology may present differently than men’s overt aggression related to their pathology, but it is not any less problematic. Women’s pathology can sometimes (and I use the word ‘sometimes’ lightly) be subtle when it is masked behind emotional dependency, sexual addiction, sexual manipulation, financial dependency, or high emotionality. Those types of symptoms can be associated with more than just a personality disorder. But women’s pathology is just as damaging to a partner, a boss, their family, friends, and God forbid, the effects it has on their children.

While women are more likely to be diagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder, borderlines are often misdiagnosed, and under-diagnosed psychopaths and anti-socials. There seems to be somewhat of a gender-bias when it comes to diagnosing women with psychopathy. Unless they have participated in a Bonnie and Clyde-type episode, or made the America’s Most Wanted television program, they are likely to be downgraded in their pathology. Dramatic, highly emotional, or self-injuring women may be downgraded to Histrionic, Narcissistic, or Borderline Personality Disorder. Those with a little more flare for hiding their real lives may warrant the same diagnosis as male psychopaths. Their ability to hide it better, or having less violence associated with their behavior, goes undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed. But not all female psychopaths are non-violent. Many are horribly violent – to their children and their partners – yet always present themselves as the victims. These are the women most likely to press unwarranted domestic violence assaults, cry rape that didn’t happen, and abandon their children. The point is, both genders can have personality disorders and each personality disorder may, or may not, present in a slightly different way in the other gender.

Beyond mutual pathology, a woman’s own mental health can influence the dynamics within a relationship with a pathological man. A woman that has bipolar disorder that is untreated, and who is in a relationship with a borderline male, can bring unusually dramatic dynamics to the relationship. Their fluctuations in mood can ignite a feeding frenzy of boiling anger in both which is likely to lead to violence. Both partners having a substance abuse or alcohol problem can certainly fuel the relationship dynamics in further, severely negative ways.

Let’s not overlook the ‘model’ of pathological behavior that women often get from being raised in a home with a pathological parent. She brings to the relationship the pathological-like behaviors that are learned within pathological families. I have seen this in sessions with women (and hear it a lot in the emails I receive) where the pathological affects of her childhood, adult life, or past or current relationship is negatively affecting her worldview, current level of functioning, as well as the entitlement attitudes she brings to the table. Couple any of HER mental health issues and situations along with HIS pathology, and you have some of the most volatile and difficult relationships and breakups in history.

There has been many times in working with women that I recognize he is not the only problem in the scenario. Not all women in pathological relationships are mentally ill. However, some women in pathological relationships ARE mentally ill. Some of her own mental illness can be the gasoline on the fire of the pathological love relationship that fans the flames of danger for her. Red flags, for me, that show there is possible mental health issues with her includes the following:

• Entitlement
• Chronic victim mentality
• Unregulated mood issues not amenable to treatment/medication
• Chronically returning to the pathological relationship
• Replacing relationships with more pathological relationships
• History of unsuccessful counseling/treatment
• Doesn’t take responsibility for her own behaviors/choices

These represent only a few of the many symptoms that could indicate a possible mental health issue in the woman as well. Clearly, pathology is not gender specific. Pathology and other mental health issues in both parties can accelerate the dangerousness and problems seen in pathological love relationships.

 Sandra L. Brown, M.A. is the Founder and CEO of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction and Public Pathology Education.  She is the author of several best selling books, including How to Spot a Dangerous Man and Why Women Love Psychopaths. www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com

Related articles

• Trait Examination or Character Assassination? (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)
• Genetic and Neuro-Physiological Basis for Hyper-Empathy (saferelationshipsmagazine.com)
• Disorders with Borderline Personality (neumannpsychology.wordpress.com)
• When Women Have Anti Social Disorder in a Relationship (phoenixsphere.com)

MAOA-L on CSI

From http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MAOA

By Heidi Hiatt

This week’s CSI episode was riveting even with Justin Bieber guest starring as a less than convincing troubled teen/domestic terrorist. There are not many episodes that are worth rewinding the show immediately to watch segments again, but this one was.

Besides the explosive subplot in which Bieber’s hair actually wound up a bit messy, Targets of Obsession pitted Dr. Ray Langston (Laurence Fishburne) against serial killer Nate Haskell (Bill Irwin) in court. Haskell had previously tried to stab Langston to death through the bars of his cell with a piece of his glasses.

Haskell decides to act as his own attorney and calls an expert witness, Dr. Corey, to the stand. Corey claims that Haskell has a gene that makes him 400 percent more likely to be aggressive, giving him a medical excuse for trying to murder Langston.

This exchange follows, with Haskell playing to the crowd that includes his adoring groupies:

Haskell: So Dr. Corey, it is your expert opinion that I cannot be held responsible for my actions, for any of them.

Corey: That is correct.

Haskell: So it’s true what they say, that I am a monster. But– a monster made of biology beyond my control. So– convicting me of attempted murder would be like convicting a blind man of being unable to see. Who’s the real victim here? Who’s the real victim?!

Langston is summoned to the witness stand and questioned by one of the prosecutors. He calls Corey’s assertions neuromythology, not neuroscience, pointing out the many conflicting studies on the subject. He goes on to explain that biology alone does not cause crime:

Langston: Alcoholics are genetically predisposed to alcoholism which is a known disease. But we don’t give drunks a pass if they decide to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and kill people. The law is interested in whether or not a person understands the different between right and wrong. And the defendant knows the difference between right and wrong. He takes pleasure in committing sadistic crimes that he knows are against the law. The fact that he has tried to cover up those crimes is evidence of his consciousness of guilt.

Prosecutor: No further questions, your honor.

Haskell: I have nothing but questions. Dr. Langton, are you a psychiatrist?

Langston: No.

Haskell: A neurologist?

Langston: No.

Haskell: A geneticist?

Langston: No, my field is research pathology.

Haskell: Then you have no expertise in this area at all. Correct?

Langston: No.

Haskell: No. You mean yes. You just testified to a complete lack of credentials. So, on what would you base any expertise?

Langston: Personal experience. Like you I was abused by an alcoholic father as a child. Like you I have the MAOA gene. DNA isn’t destiny. We’re all responsible for our own actions. I share the same gene with you, Nate, but I’ve never murdered anyone. I take satisfaction in bringing justice to victims, not killing them and torturing them.

I almost stood up and cheered. Oh yeah! Go Dr. Ray! As science increases our understanding of the biological factors that play into antisocial behavior, we can’t dismiss the importance of other factors, especially free will.

The gene in question here is a variant of the MAOA gene, sometimes called the warrior gene. Specifically, the variant known as MAOA-L is most often implicated in aggressive and antisocial behavior, although MAOA-H has entered into the discussion. The L indicates low activity of MAOA, and the H high activity.

Some researchers say that people with the active gene are more likely to respond with aggression when provoked, become mired in credit card debt, and join gangs. Childhood abuse or stress are supposedly the biggest triggers of this genetic trait. About a third of the people in Western populations have it.

The National Center for Biotechnology Information says that the MAOA gene “…encodes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. The protein localizes to the mitochondrial outer membrane. The gene is adjacent to a related gene on the opposite strand of chromosome X.”

In their March 2008 article MAOA and the neurogenetic architecture of human aggression (Trends in Neurosciences, Vol. 31, Issue 3), Joshua Buckholtz and Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg make a similar point to what the fictional Dr. Langston did: “Although aggressive behaviors and temperament are highly heritable, clinical and trait associations for the most promising candidate gene for aggression, MAOA, have been largely inconsistent.” They go on to propose a methodology intended to resolve some of the inconsistencies, but their point is valid; this is a developing concept.

Our understanding of the human brain is increasing in leaps and bounds. We already know that it is possible to have a brain scan that appears the same as a sociopath’s, but not be a sociopath. You might have heard of James Fallon, the neuroscientist who discovered that his brain appears that way. He had a PET scan done when he learned of a high incidence of antisocial behavior on his dad’s side.

Fallon’s story is part of a 2010 Talk of the Nation show on NPR. The audio and transcript are at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128339306. NPR host Neil Conan and correspondent Barbara Bradley Hagerty discussed how researchers like Fallon believe that both nature and nurture factor into sociopathic behavior:

Conan: So you can have a genetic disposition, but that is not fate.

Hagerty: That’s right, exactly.

While nature and nurture may well factor into behavior that harms others, I do not believe that biological and environmental factors are the only explanation of it. You can have a terrible, hellish childhood and still grow up to be a loving, considerate, productive member of society.

Even though biology and environment may increase the temptation to lash out in some people, a majority of human beings have the ability to consciously choose whether to indulge their inner demons. As MLK Jr. said, “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”

If biology is the sole or the most influential factor in a person’s moral choices, then wouldn’t someone with no control over their actions be constantly making violent choices? Wouldn’t they frequently harm themselves? Or wouldn’t they be lashing out at random rather than targeting specific victims, or a specific type of victims? They would be like a runaway car with no brakes, striking everything in its path, not just selected objects.

Instead, people without conscience tend to use and consume specific others because of what they get out of it. They may engage in a cost-benefit analysis when selecting their victims. They may choose victims with a similarity to others who they perceive have wronged them. Many crimes are solved because of patterns and predictability, because criminals develop certain tastes.

While CSI‘s discussion of the MAOA gene was basic and designed for television, Langston’s point was right on the money. Haskell is not a victim; despite similar childhoods and genetics, Langston fights for victims while Haskell rapes and kills. Biology is not an excuse for criminal behavior.

Does our legal system believe that though? Already, in the United States and other countries, we have seen sentencing soften when neuroscientific evidence is used. It may seem merciful to go easy on the minority of the population that have certain biological characteristics. By doing so, we may be rewarding bad choices, freeing dangerous people to offend again.

If someone truly does not have control over their actions due to a biological factor, then society should be protected from them. They should not roam freely. Thus the biological theory backfires on itself. If a crime-causing condition is permanent, the only surefire way to protect everyone else is to keep such “zombies” locked up.

As a side note, the actor who plays Nate Haskell is shockingly believable in that role. He oozes sadism, narcissism, and lack of conscience. Originally a highly regarded circus clown, Bill Irwin has also been Elmo’s buddy Mr. Noodle and was in the Don’t Worry, Be Happy video with Robin Williams and Bobby McFerrin. His range is remarkable, and he and Fishburne are an excellent match.

I hesitate to bring up the stereotype about clowns and serial killers, but as I was writing this, a certain Jack Handey quote popped into my head: “To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kinda scary. I’ve wondered where this started, and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus and a clown killed my dad.”

Well Jack, maybe that clown had MAOA-L, an eerily quiet orbital frontal cortex, a crappy life, no soul, and no concept of good and evil, so he should be free to return to the big top. Never mind that many of the other clowns grew up in less than ideal circumstances, are violent crime survivors, have faced various injustices, and even have the same genetics, but volunteer at a crisis clinic in their off time.

I look forward to learning more about the biology of criminals and watching how our legal system and society responds to those findings. It is a fascinating field and I’m all for increasing our knowledge of human biology as it relates to crime. I just don’t agree with using it as an excuse for crime. We are more than skin-covered robots with a predetermined destiny.



The “why” of his disease is less important than “what” you are going to do about your situation. -Sandra Brown

Chronic Personality Problems in Problem Relationships

By Sandra L. Brown

In our first segment, I discussed that all abusers are not created equal. That means not all abusers treatment is going to be effective. Ultimately, not all problem relationships have a solution. That's not popular to hear--but it is realistic. If people who are in problem relationships want to avoid future problem relationships, they have to understand what contributes to permanent disorders and the signs within the behavior.

There is no doubt that chronic personality problems wreak havoc in relationships. If we looked a little closer at what we call 'domestic violence, abusive, chronic, or dyfunctional' relationships, we would notice that the worst of these have commonalities. (No abuse is mild. I'm not suggesting that. What I am trying to hone on is the chronicity and lethality of some of the relationships that are not treatable).

When looking at the behaviors associated with problem partners with permanent problems, we have to do two things. Look broadly at the symptoms, but not so broadly that we find loopholes. Normally, one symptom off a behavioral list does not constitute one of the now referred to as 'severe personality disorders' or the no conscienced disorders of sociopathy or psychopathy. However, they don't need to have all of these traits in order to be destructive or even diagnosed with the disorder. Those in relationships with problem partners often fail on the side of 'too much empathy' and give them more credit for not having these symptoms than what is warranted. Somewhere in the middle of one trait-too-many is a snap shot of problem partners. Here are some of the behaviors associated with severe personality disorders and socio/psychopathy. 

To make this the emotional reality check it should be, check off any traits you are WILLING to have in an intimtate relationship or father-material for your child:

___Disregard for, and the violation of, the rights of others

___Failure to conform to lawful social norms

___Deceitfulness Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

___Irritability and aggressiveness as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

___Reckless disregard for the safety of self or others

___Consistent irresponsibility as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial

        obligations   

(Above are related to Antisocial Personality Disorder)

___ Lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent about having hurt, mistreated or stolen from another

___ Glib and superficial charm

___ Grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self

___ Need for stimulation

___ Pathological lying

___ Cunning and manipulativeness

___ Lack of remorse or guilt

___ Shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)

___ Callousness and lack of empathy

___ Parasitic lifestyle

___ Poor behavioral controls

___ Sexual promiscuity

___ Early behavior problems

___ Lack of realistic long-term goals

___ Impulsivity irresponsibility

___ Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

___ Many short-term relationships

___ Juvenile delinquency

___ Revocation of conditional release

___ Criminal versatility

(Above are related to Sociopaths/Psychopaths)

___ Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment

___ Intense and unstable personal relationships that over idealize and devalue

___ Identity disturbance with unstable self image or sense of self impulsivity in at least two areas

        (spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating)

___ Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, threats or self-mutilation

___ Emotional instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (intense episodic irritability or anxiety)

___ Chronic feelings of emptiness

___ Inappropriate intense anger or difficulty controlling anger

(Above are related to Borderline Personality Disorder)

___ A grandiose sense of self importance

___ Exaggerates their achievements and talents

___ Expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements

___ Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

___ Believes that he is special and unique and can only be understood by, or should only associate with,

        other special or other high-status people or institutions.

___ Requires excessive admiration

___ Has a sense of entitlement, unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or

        automatic compliance with his expectations

___ Is interpersonally exploitative within relationships and takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends

___ Lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

___ Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him

___ Shows an arrogant, haughty behavior or attitude

(Above are related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

Did you see any 'must haves' for your 'how-to-have-a-happy-life' relationship checklist? I didn't think so.

Thats because this list is not mild relational infractions or merely Dr.Phil 'deal breakers'. These are permanent pathology that can emotional mangle or even kill you or your children. These lists are profiles are those who go on to do the most damage, the chronic repeated abuse, the child abductions, stalking, rape, and killing. These are the abusers who are not created equal, who have permanent brain and personality disorders that bypass what psychology can do for them. Anger management--nope. Batterer intervention--nope. Intensive psychotherapy--nope. Pathology is noted for it's Three Inabilities (Brown, 2005):

* Inability to grow to any authentic emotional or spiritual depth

* Inability to sustain positive change

* Inability to develop insight how their behavior negatively effects others

These inabilities are the hallmark of permanent and chronic disorders that create chronic problem relationships. 

Bring your check list above next time when I talk about how these charactersitics effect the relationship dynamics! 

(For more information on Problem Partners contact us at www.saferelationshipsmagazine.com)