I'm way too tired right now to fully dig into this one – though it looks like I could get lost down an interesting rabbithole here – but the phrasing of this title reminded me of a tangential but...
I'm way too tired right now to fully dig into this one – though it looks like I could get lost down an interesting rabbithole here – but the phrasing of this title reminded me of a tangential but related concept that I feel might be useful to bring up anyway.
Concepts and disorders like psychopathy and sociopathy (and to a slightly lesser extent schizophrenia) have some incredibly toxic reputations about them. People and pop culture like to think of them extremely negatively. And sometimes that's a bit justified — if something's broken such that you can't understand why hurting someone is bad, yeah, someone being wary around you is understandable.
But that means an important reminder may be useful, so to those who might need it: None of the above conditions make their sufferers automatically evil. Empathy encourages kindness, but it is not a prerequisite, and there are people who have had each of the above conditions and still done good for the world. Do not treat them – any of them, even psychopathy – as though they're somehow the "Bad Evil Person who Deserves to Suffer" disorder. That disorder does not exist. Using any heuristic, test, or other rubric for these conditions to try and justify hating someone is irresponsible and disgusting in every case. Please don't make that mistake.
A relevant article: there's a famous story of a neuroscientist named James Fallon discovering his brain scans matched the known hallmarks of a psychopath. Further genetic testing showed he had all...
A relevant article: there's a famous story of a neuroscientist named James Fallon discovering his brain scans matched the known hallmarks of a psychopath. Further genetic testing showed he had all these genetic markers that are typically linked to aggression, but he didn't behave in those ways. His theory was that his positive and loving childhood influenced him to be a "pro-social psychopath" and behave within socially acceptable boundaries.
Also worth noting psychopathy isn't in the DSM due to how broad it is. While looking for that article, I found that brain scans alone can't truly be used to identify psychopathy. There are patterns of common regions typically associated with it (the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex), but professionals usually make the call based on behavior. Again, Fallon only discovered he had the neurological and genetic hallmarks associated with psychopathy due to examining his own MRI. Most of the known cases are criminals who got caught, so our definitions of "psychopathy" are automatically biased.
I was thinking about this article when I was writing that post but couldn't remember where I heard of it!! So happy you posted it, thank you. It was bothering the hell outta me, haha.
I was thinking about this article when I was writing that post but couldn't remember where I heard of it!! So happy you posted it, thank you. It was bothering the hell outta me, haha.
Agreed. Any sort of arm chair diagnosis should only be useful as a guide for one to keep safer distances from, or to escape the clutches of those who are actively hurting someone. This isn't a...
Agreed. Any sort of arm chair diagnosis should only be useful as a guide for one to keep safer distances from, or to escape the clutches of those who are actively hurting someone. This isn't a disease that makes someone less worthy of having their rights protected or be treated humanely: it does not make them evil, and hurting them does not do humanity any good.
More like a field guide for extremely toxic lookalikes: don't harm them, respect biodiversity, protect their habitat that we all share, but engage with extreme caution, or cease contact/consumption immediately.
From this research, which took her five years, Mitchell built a template of 20 attributes, , divided into four clusters, and 25 tactics that would identify a high-functioning persistent predatory...
People with persistent predatory personalities cause an inordinate amount of pain. Recently, our shared understanding of them has grown – and it could help protect us
From this research, which took her five years, Mitchell built a template of 20 attributes, , divided into four clusters, and 25 tactics that would identify a high-functioning persistent predatory personality type.
Cluster one includes
a need for control;
a grandiose sense of self;
pathological inner response to challenge;
vengefulness;
refusal to compromise.
Cluster two includes
being predatory or exploitative;
sadistic and cruel;
having a low regard for laws, agreements, social and moral codes;
no boundaries in sexual relationships;
unreasonable expectations of others.
Cluster three relates to the truth:
Dark Personalities cultivate a façade of normality;
they are chameleon-like;
dishonest;
devious and manipulative; and
unwilling to accept responsibility for the negative impacts they cause.
Finally, cluster four is around the Dark Personality’s own interior life:
their emotions are acted and they do not experience affinity or the joy that comes with it;
I was thinking about how if this were reddit, someone would comment about how you're obsessed with Trump, you're insane, this proves he's right about everything, and all that crap. But then I...
I was thinking about how if this were reddit, someone would comment about how you're obsessed with Trump, you're insane, this proves he's right about everything, and all that crap.
But then I realized that, with something like this, I'm not sure I could tell you a single person I know in real life who exhibits any of these traits. Perhaps people I know do behave this way, but not anyone I know well, and they mask it well enough for me to not think about them.
The only people I can think of like this are public figures, most of whom are politicians. Maybe some reddit mods.
But even among those people, the only one who is so outrageous as to even let us understand their inner responses is Trump. Sure, others are bad, but he's the only one who seems to have never outgrown being a petulant child.
Like, imagine being such a bad narcissist that it doesn't even seem to cross your mind to hide that you're a psychopath.
And people devoted their lives to supporting this guy.
Consider yourself very fortunate. Like the article says, a lot of these types function well enough in regular society that most people they interact with get the "how do you do, fellow cats"...
I'm not sure I could tell you a single person I know in real life who exhibits any of these traits
Consider yourself very fortunate. Like the article says, a lot of these types function well enough in regular society that most people they interact with get the "how do you do, fellow cats" treatment. Which makes it more disorienting when their chosen victims see the version behind closed doors, but maybe even only some of the time.
It's like those movies where someone is told they're actually a cyborg, in this case, a domestic abuse victim. "I can't be! But I have memories of the predator at good times, they did X Y Z for me!" It might take a lot of years for victims to realise their memories of good aren't like regular family memories, that they're so few and far between, mostly in public or when resources are exceptionally plentiful, whereas most people have a much longer and pervasive environment of good memories with isolated episodes of tension. That most people dont spend a large part of their day, watching, being vigilant, making sure the predator is kept emotionally happy and appeased and well fed on their chosen type of stimulation.
This is an excellent summary of what it's like, yes. I got away from my abuser almost a decade ago now, but reading that list brought everything back, all the dimensions of his cruelty and...
This is an excellent summary of what it's like, yes. I got away from my abuser almost a decade ago now, but reading that list brought everything back, all the dimensions of his cruelty and selfishness.
My experience was very disorienting, but the thing for me was that he was nice and sweet and charming at first. It wasn't until we moved in together about a year into our relationship that I really noticed that he had this other side to him that was confusing and strange. The longer we lived together, the more he shared with me, and the more it felt like I saw the cyborg behind the man. It was like there were two of him, and he could flip into his uglier side with little warning (although I certainly did learn to read the signs). And he was so fun and charming around other people, I doubted myself, and later I doubted my ability to convince anyone as to what he was really like.
I'm a lot better now, but I still carry some damage from that time. I hope you're ok, chocobean.
I feel this wholeheartedly. My abuser was just my housemate of ten years, not a romantic partner. For the first six years we were best friends pretty much. Then after Trump was elected I think he...
I feel this wholeheartedly. My abuser was just my housemate of ten years, not a romantic partner. For the first six years we were best friends pretty much. Then after Trump was elected I think he saw that the person he had been repressing was accepted by the larger world and he could take off the mask. There were signs beforehand that I ignored/missed but now that I know them, I see them everywhere.
The last four years were a living, scarring hell for me - I tried getting out several times but didn't have the financial means to escape. Eventually I did get the opportunity during COVID - I'm in a much better place now and he's still the same as far as I know so I guess I won?
Yes, with narcissists and psycho/sociopaths, their victims are very unfortunate and I have indirect experience with them. A lot of (C)PTSD in their victims. But you're actually supporting what I...
Yes, with narcissists and psycho/sociopaths, their victims are very unfortunate and I have indirect experience with them. A lot of (C)PTSD in their victims.
But you're actually supporting what I said—most of them mask this behavior. I think most people don't know anyone who has one of those disorders without masking it. I think many of the people we accuse of these traits are just mean people rather than truly disordered in these ways, even if the statistics indicate that we all know at least a few of them.
Maybe there isn't actually a hard, physiological dividing line between "just mean" and disordered. Maybe the disorder is when someone has spent enough time getting away with, and then further...
Maybe there isn't actually a hard, physiological dividing line between "just mean" and disordered. Maybe the disorder is when someone has spent enough time getting away with, and then further cultivating their meanness towards specific victims, until they no longer feel compulsion to mask to their victims, or their ability to mask gives way to the justice system, whichever comes first. And when resources are plentiful and there's no real reason to hurt, they behave just like normal people.
It's like any of the diagnostic inventories for other mental health issues : is it just forgetfulness or ADHD, is it just introversion or autism? There's a huge catalog of traits that everyone has a few items of, but for those who fit the diagnosis, it's pervasive and permanent and check far more boxes than others.
I don't know man, I know two of these types and I spent years thinking surely that can't be, surely they're just emotionally immature or had hard circumstances growing up or just slightly bad like we all are, or every kind of excuse possible. No one wants to believe they are dealing with someone who is like this. I'm not a psychologist, but armed with the list and being able to check off all of them over a long period of time, I can't diagnose, and maybe they're not disordered just mean, but the only thing I can choose is safety.
I've been saying since his first term that sociologists and psychologists must be fascinated. It's basically the largest-scale case study of a narcissist's influence and manipulation in modern...
I've been saying since his first term that sociologists and psychologists must be fascinated. It's basically the largest-scale case study of a narcissist's influence and manipulation in modern history. And also how easily swayed people can be by paper-thin lies and obvious inconsistencies if they decide they like someone.
And on that note, back in 2016 I was deep into reading that subreddit for kids with narcissistic parents. He managed to check every single checkbox that came up. I'm pretty sure someone compiled a list of narcisstic traits in a reply on that subreddit, and he hit every single one. I'm not qualified to formally diagnose anyone and I usually avoid trying to make claims about public figures because we have limited information... But yeah, I make an exception for him because he's genuinely the most textbook example.
That mental framing at least saved me some stress of trying to analyze the motivations behind his decisions. I think just last year pundits were debating about his greater plans over decisions that, to me at least, clearly stemmed from petty grudges or trying to flaunt his ego and power.
I’ve thought a few times about how a lot of mental illness only manifests or matters in relationships with other people. If you’re living alone in the mountains it doesn’t matter a lot if you’re a...
I’ve thought a few times about how a lot of mental illness only manifests or matters in relationships with other people. If you’re living alone in the mountains it doesn’t matter a lot if you’re a narcissist.
When you are around other people, there’s usually a feedback loop that suppresses your worst qualities or you get shunned.
One reason Trump keeps getting worse is that he constantly receives positive reinforcement no matter what he does. All of his behaviors together have rewarded him with one of the most powerful positions in the world, and he’s constantly the center of attention. If he says something crazy or does something corrupt or evil, his base loves it and his enemies seethe.
Why the hell would he change?
(Also he has age-related dementia or something similar so has even fewer guardrails)
I agree that Trump is loathesome, but honestly? I feel like it's a bad impulse to read about psychopathy and then immediately go, "This sure sounds like that one person I hate." Rubs me the wrong...
I agree that Trump is loathesome, but honestly? I feel like it's a bad impulse to read about psychopathy and then immediately go, "This sure sounds like that one person I hate." Rubs me the wrong way something fierce, you know?
If it's any consolation, if you want to hate Trump, you've already got plenty of good reasons, because he's a fascist. So no need to apply this to begin with.
EDIT: Lots of folks are misinterpreting me here, and given how many I think it's my bad. So to clarify: I don't take issue with calling Trump a psychopath. I just wanna discourage the general idea of using newly-learned information about a mental disorder as a reason why you were correct to have hated someone. It's an easy mistake to make, but it can just as easily lead to unjustified anger at people who very much aren't like Trump.
The article addresses this: The point isn't to diagnose public figures like Trump, but to teach everyday people how to recognize the tactics and behaviors that psychopaths commonly exhibit. Trump...
The article addresses this:
It’s unfashionable to the point of being taboo in psychiatry and psychology now to ascribe personality disorders to public figures. “One of the perils of bringing psychology into politics is that it’s very easy for anyone with any given political perspective to look at their political enemies or rivals and say: ‘OK, well, they’re all psychopaths,’” says Koehli. There’s also the Goldwater Rule, which established as a psychiatric principle that professionals are not allowed to diagnose public figures they haven’t had clinical contact with or met (this was after 1,189 psychiatrists declared Barry Goldwater unfit to be president in the 1964 election). Viding, however, finds the fixation with diagnosis perhaps irrelevant in this context. “I always find the obsession with diagnosing these people interesting. You don’t need to diagnose them, there are a set of personality traits, and you can recognise individuals with those traits. If someone’s in political power, you can see those exemplified in behaviour, and most people are perfectly capable of making an assessment of what that signifies.”
Brazen lying in public life is a tactic Lobaczewski recognised – he called it the “reversive blockade”. Koehli describes it as: “When you tell a lie convincingly and it’s such an absurd lie, most people’s automatic reaction is that they can’t comprehend a lie told on that scale, so they try to find the ‘golden mean’ between the statement and the reality. But that, Lobaczewski says, is the intention of the big lie. They know it will sow confusion.” The impact on the population over which a dark personality presides is huge: some will try and find that golden mean; others will remain steadfast in calling it a lie and fall out with the first lot; others will try to adjust their own reality to make the lie true; while others will become inured to the new normal – that we just all lie now.
The point isn't to diagnose public figures like Trump, but to teach everyday people how to recognize the tactics and behaviors that psychopaths commonly exhibit. Trump doesn't have to be a clinical psychopath for you to pattern match his manipulation techniques and guard yourself against them — just like you don't need to diagnose the person you're dating to pick up on red flags like love-bombing or excessive jealousy.
That's a good quote, yeah. Though I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength — it sounds like your quote is agreeing with me? In case it wasn't clear, my comment was directed at what...
That's a good quote, yeah. Though I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength — it sounds like your quote is agreeing with me?
In case it wasn't clear, my comment was directed at what Kerry56 said, not the article itself. I'm pointing out the same impulsive "diagnosing" that the article mentions there.
What I mean is that it's not enough to recognize that Trump is fascist. It's important to recognize the precise psychopathic (or at least psychopath-like) tactics he uses so that you can resist...
What I mean is that it's not enough to recognize that Trump is fascist. It's important to recognize the precise psychopathic (or at least psychopath-like) tactics he uses so that you can resist them. When he starts telling a "big lie", for example, the issue isn't (just) that he has bad politics, but that he's warping your understanding of reality — whether you agree with his politics or not.
Even if Trump had good politics, it would still important to recognize the ways he manipulates public discourse. There's nothing stopping a psychopath from getting into leftwing politics, after all. Someone as manipulative as Trump isn't married to the platform they espouse; their political alignment is just another tool they use to influence people.
Oh, I get you. I've watched several whole videos on this subject. I agree completely. I suspect you may've misinterpreted my post as suggesting that calling Trump a psychopath was unfair; this...
Oh, I get you. I've watched several whole videos on this subject. I agree completely.
I suspect you may've misinterpreted my post as suggesting that calling Trump a psychopath was unfair; this wasn't what I meant and it's on me for not being clearer, as several others misinterpreted the same way.
I was just trying to say that it's bad habit to retroactively assign negative behaviors to people one dislikes upon learning about them, because other people aren't Trump, and you can end up with hate that has no good reason to exist.
I'm sorry my comment rubbed you the wrong way, but I was merely making an observation. Trump's personality traits fit neatly in the predatory personality described within the article. I'm not a...
I'm sorry my comment rubbed you the wrong way, but I was merely making an observation. Trump's personality traits fit neatly in the predatory personality described within the article. I'm not a psychologist, and not qualified to make a clinical judgement on whether he is a psychopath or not. That was not my point, or intention. The alignment of his personality and the traits listed does give one pause however, and should give better insight into how he functions and his motivations.
Hey, I'm not really disagreeing. Trump's awful, and I could definitely see him sharing traits with a psychopath. I've just seen it happen before that folks will hear explanations for why people do...
Hey, I'm not really disagreeing. Trump's awful, and I could definitely see him sharing traits with a psychopath.
I've just seen it happen before that folks will hear explanations for why people do bad things, and then retroactively apply it to those they don't like. For the specific case of Trump, it's no big deal because he is, as I said, a fascist. He's obviously terrible. I just don't want folks getting into the habit of this thinking, because it can lead to illogical hatred of other people who haven't earned it.
Yes, and it would be much healthier to reach that conclusion with careful consideration as a matter of curiosity, rather than impulsively, or as an implicit justification for anger.
Yes, and it would be much healthier to reach that conclusion with careful consideration as a matter of curiosity, rather than impulsively, or as an implicit justification for anger.
I can say I think he matches many of these traits, but I have a Master's in Counseling and 20 years of (mostly non-clinical) experience, plus about a decade of Trump to base that on. It's not a...
I can say I think he matches many of these traits, but I have a Master's in Counseling and 20 years of (mostly non-clinical) experience, plus about a decade of Trump to base that on.
It's not a reason to hate him, it's not a diagnosis, but it's worth noting the pattern I think and isn't inherently a flippant jump to conclusions. I get the concern you have here and in your other comment though and I think it's natural to see something like this and clock people in your life that it may apply to - even if they're public figures
Yeah, I've got no argument against calling specifically Trump out for psychopathic behavior. That's absolutely fair. I just want to caution people against doing on a more general basis. And yeah,...
Yeah, I've got no argument against calling specifically Trump out for psychopathic behavior. That's absolutely fair. I just want to caution people against doing on a more general basis.
And yeah, I would agree that it is pretty normal for people to do this. I just think it's a bit unsafe, you know? Since people have that whole negative perception thing I mentioned in my big comment elsewhere, I feel that it runs a risk of being a way for folks to create a false post-hoc justification for pre-existing hatred; not really a problem for someone like Trump who is undeniably terrible, more a possible problem for when that hatred might not be so fair.
Sure and most people misuse terms like narcissist, and psycho/sociopath etc. Or treat terms like they're diagnoses and they can understand them. I think though, more so, especially with something...
Sure and most people misuse terms like narcissist, and psycho/sociopath etc. Or treat terms like they're diagnoses and they can understand them.
I think though, more so, especially with something like psychopathy, it's more a risk of adding an improper label to someone you don't like, than causing people to dislike someone due to said label. Which is mostly annoying in a "the public has found our words" sort of way. (Ala narcissism). Especially since it's not even really a diagnosis and no one wants to talk about ASPD instead.
But again, I get your broader point, and agree with it. Just think that belaboring the point about whether it's appropriate for Trump or not vs that broader point is less effective because he so clearly and totally demonstrates these traits.
Calling Trump a psychopath isn't an impulsive thing itself at all, no. It's just generally poor form to call anyone you don't like a psychopath right after reading about traits of psychopaths,...
Calling Trump a psychopath isn't an impulsive thing itself at all, no. It's just generally poor form to call anyone you don't like a psychopath right after reading about traits of psychopaths, because that usually is an impulse. It's the general idea that I'm concerned with, not who it was about.
For me, the most terrifying is cluster 3 and 4. The other two, maybe the person is a kind of a jerk, or really impulsive, or kinda brain damaged, or just grew up really bad circumstances and you...
For me, the most terrifying is cluster 3 and 4. The other two, maybe the person is a kind of a jerk, or really impulsive, or kinda brain damaged, or just grew up really bad circumstances and you could feel pity for them.
Cluster One is completely normalized and expected shape of how all Confucius ideal parents/teachers/lords/emperor function. Top down authoritarianism. Your standard parent or teacher or politician has to be like this. They'll tell you they don't like it either but this is how society functions. Order of being, divine right of kings, religious authority structure, holy scriptures or the Constitution etc.
Cluster Two is the 80s go getter shark type, the competitive get ahead of you rival type, the zero sum world "lookin out for Number One" types. They might be good at this and even get joy out of being on top. This is just standard business suit financial world procedures: we are forced to interact with corporations as if they're people, and this is the type of people we are forced to be familiar with.
Three is where we see a relationship thoroughly and irredeemably break down. In a lot of fiction we see examples of making a contract with the devil, or summon a demon butler, or an alliance with the enemy, or say, the vampire is in love with you and won't eat your family etc. Lawful evil: they might equivocate or monkey paw you, but there are some ground rules of what is real and which way is up. With Cluster Three, you'll never get empathy because they simply dont see your reality. They have never once done anything to hurt, how could you be so vicious to accuse? They don't ever remember harm, only how kind they are and how generous and loving to you, hospitalised by their violence. The incidents you remember simply aren't true, and damn your video evidence or financial paper trail or a room with 100 witnesses, it just simply isn't true. Sure you can try telling someone but the facts are so bizarre, so pervasive and for so many years that every bystander will find it easier to doubt you instead of the dizzying array that simply isn't possible. You know how at a trial for child sexual abuse, sometimes the evidence is so horrific the prosecution limits how much the jury get exposed to, because they know when it's too much the human mind responds protectively by shutting down and insisting it can't be that bad? Being a victim of someone with Cluster Three is like that: bystanders have to shut down to regain their Just World equilibrium.
Cluster Four make a lot of sense to answer "how can they be like this": if they don't experience affinity, if they don't get joy from seeing others experience joy, or no joy when their child mature and gain confidence, their world becomes only about their own happiness.
I'm way too tired right now to fully dig into this one – though it looks like I could get lost down an interesting rabbithole here – but the phrasing of this title reminded me of a tangential but related concept that I feel might be useful to bring up anyway.
Concepts and disorders like psychopathy and sociopathy (and to a slightly lesser extent schizophrenia) have some incredibly toxic reputations about them. People and pop culture like to think of them extremely negatively. And sometimes that's a bit justified — if something's broken such that you can't understand why hurting someone is bad, yeah, someone being wary around you is understandable.
But that means an important reminder may be useful, so to those who might need it: None of the above conditions make their sufferers automatically evil. Empathy encourages kindness, but it is not a prerequisite, and there are people who have had each of the above conditions and still done good for the world. Do not treat them – any of them, even psychopathy – as though they're somehow the "Bad Evil Person who Deserves to Suffer" disorder. That disorder does not exist. Using any heuristic, test, or other rubric for these conditions to try and justify hating someone is irresponsible and disgusting in every case. Please don't make that mistake.
A relevant article: there's a famous story of a neuroscientist named James Fallon discovering his brain scans matched the known hallmarks of a psychopath. Further genetic testing showed he had all these genetic markers that are typically linked to aggression, but he didn't behave in those ways. His theory was that his positive and loving childhood influenced him to be a "pro-social psychopath" and behave within socially acceptable boundaries.
Also worth noting psychopathy isn't in the DSM due to how broad it is. While looking for that article, I found that brain scans alone can't truly be used to identify psychopathy. There are patterns of common regions typically associated with it (the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex), but professionals usually make the call based on behavior. Again, Fallon only discovered he had the neurological and genetic hallmarks associated with psychopathy due to examining his own MRI. Most of the known cases are criminals who got caught, so our definitions of "psychopathy" are automatically biased.
I was thinking about this article when I was writing that post but couldn't remember where I heard of it!! So happy you posted it, thank you. It was bothering the hell outta me, haha.
Very much appreciate this reminder and cosign it!
Agreed. Any sort of arm chair diagnosis should only be useful as a guide for one to keep safer distances from, or to escape the clutches of those who are actively hurting someone. This isn't a disease that makes someone less worthy of having their rights protected or be treated humanely: it does not make them evil, and hurting them does not do humanity any good.
More like a field guide for extremely toxic lookalikes: don't harm them, respect biodiversity, protect their habitat that we all share, but engage with extreme caution, or cease contact/consumption immediately.
From this research, which took her five years, Mitchell built a template of 20 attributes, , divided into four clusters, and 25 tactics that would identify a high-functioning persistent predatory personality type.
Those clusters combine to describe Trump as well as I've ever seen.
I was thinking about how if this were reddit, someone would comment about how you're obsessed with Trump, you're insane, this proves he's right about everything, and all that crap.
But then I realized that, with something like this, I'm not sure I could tell you a single person I know in real life who exhibits any of these traits. Perhaps people I know do behave this way, but not anyone I know well, and they mask it well enough for me to not think about them.
The only people I can think of like this are public figures, most of whom are politicians. Maybe some reddit mods.
But even among those people, the only one who is so outrageous as to even let us understand their inner responses is Trump. Sure, others are bad, but he's the only one who seems to have never outgrown being a petulant child.
Like, imagine being such a bad narcissist that it doesn't even seem to cross your mind to hide that you're a psychopath.
And people devoted their lives to supporting this guy.
Consider yourself very fortunate. Like the article says, a lot of these types function well enough in regular society that most people they interact with get the "how do you do, fellow cats" treatment. Which makes it more disorienting when their chosen victims see the version behind closed doors, but maybe even only some of the time.
It's like those movies where someone is told they're actually a cyborg, in this case, a domestic abuse victim. "I can't be! But I have memories of the predator at good times, they did X Y Z for me!" It might take a lot of years for victims to realise their memories of good aren't like regular family memories, that they're so few and far between, mostly in public or when resources are exceptionally plentiful, whereas most people have a much longer and pervasive environment of good memories with isolated episodes of tension. That most people dont spend a large part of their day, watching, being vigilant, making sure the predator is kept emotionally happy and appeased and well fed on their chosen type of stimulation.
This is an excellent summary of what it's like, yes. I got away from my abuser almost a decade ago now, but reading that list brought everything back, all the dimensions of his cruelty and selfishness.
My experience was very disorienting, but the thing for me was that he was nice and sweet and charming at first. It wasn't until we moved in together about a year into our relationship that I really noticed that he had this other side to him that was confusing and strange. The longer we lived together, the more he shared with me, and the more it felt like I saw the cyborg behind the man. It was like there were two of him, and he could flip into his uglier side with little warning (although I certainly did learn to read the signs). And he was so fun and charming around other people, I doubted myself, and later I doubted my ability to convince anyone as to what he was really like.
I'm a lot better now, but I still carry some damage from that time. I hope you're ok, chocobean.
Thanks cheep_cheep :) glad you got away, and I believe you. I'm doing very well these days and better all the time!
I feel this wholeheartedly. My abuser was just my housemate of ten years, not a romantic partner. For the first six years we were best friends pretty much. Then after Trump was elected I think he saw that the person he had been repressing was accepted by the larger world and he could take off the mask. There were signs beforehand that I ignored/missed but now that I know them, I see them everywhere.
The last four years were a living, scarring hell for me - I tried getting out several times but didn't have the financial means to escape. Eventually I did get the opportunity during COVID - I'm in a much better place now and he's still the same as far as I know so I guess I won?
Yes, with narcissists and psycho/sociopaths, their victims are very unfortunate and I have indirect experience with them. A lot of (C)PTSD in their victims.
But you're actually supporting what I said—most of them mask this behavior. I think most people don't know anyone who has one of those disorders without masking it. I think many of the people we accuse of these traits are just mean people rather than truly disordered in these ways, even if the statistics indicate that we all know at least a few of them.
Maybe there isn't actually a hard, physiological dividing line between "just mean" and disordered. Maybe the disorder is when someone has spent enough time getting away with, and then further cultivating their meanness towards specific victims, until they no longer feel compulsion to mask to their victims, or their ability to mask gives way to the justice system, whichever comes first. And when resources are plentiful and there's no real reason to hurt, they behave just like normal people.
It's like any of the diagnostic inventories for other mental health issues : is it just forgetfulness or ADHD, is it just introversion or autism? There's a huge catalog of traits that everyone has a few items of, but for those who fit the diagnosis, it's pervasive and permanent and check far more boxes than others.
I don't know man, I know two of these types and I spent years thinking surely that can't be, surely they're just emotionally immature or had hard circumstances growing up or just slightly bad like we all are, or every kind of excuse possible. No one wants to believe they are dealing with someone who is like this. I'm not a psychologist, but armed with the list and being able to check off all of them over a long period of time, I can't diagnose, and maybe they're not disordered just mean, but the only thing I can choose is safety.
I've been saying since his first term that sociologists and psychologists must be fascinated. It's basically the largest-scale case study of a narcissist's influence and manipulation in modern history. And also how easily swayed people can be by paper-thin lies and obvious inconsistencies if they decide they like someone.
And on that note, back in 2016 I was deep into reading that subreddit for kids with narcissistic parents. He managed to check every single checkbox that came up. I'm pretty sure someone compiled a list of narcisstic traits in a reply on that subreddit, and he hit every single one. I'm not qualified to formally diagnose anyone and I usually avoid trying to make claims about public figures because we have limited information... But yeah, I make an exception for him because he's genuinely the most textbook example.
That mental framing at least saved me some stress of trying to analyze the motivations behind his decisions. I think just last year pundits were debating about his greater plans over decisions that, to me at least, clearly stemmed from petty grudges or trying to flaunt his ego and power.
I’ve thought a few times about how a lot of mental illness only manifests or matters in relationships with other people. If you’re living alone in the mountains it doesn’t matter a lot if you’re a narcissist.
When you are around other people, there’s usually a feedback loop that suppresses your worst qualities or you get shunned.
One reason Trump keeps getting worse is that he constantly receives positive reinforcement no matter what he does. All of his behaviors together have rewarded him with one of the most powerful positions in the world, and he’s constantly the center of attention. If he says something crazy or does something corrupt or evil, his base loves it and his enemies seethe.
Why the hell would he change?
(Also he has age-related dementia or something similar so has even fewer guardrails)
I agree that Trump is loathesome, but honestly? I feel like it's a bad impulse to read about psychopathy and then immediately go, "This sure sounds like that one person I hate." Rubs me the wrong way something fierce, you know?
If it's any consolation, if you want to hate Trump, you've already got plenty of good reasons, because he's a fascist. So no need to apply this to begin with.
EDIT: Lots of folks are misinterpreting me here, and given how many I think it's my bad. So to clarify: I don't take issue with calling Trump a psychopath. I just wanna discourage the general idea of using newly-learned information about a mental disorder as a reason why you were correct to have hated someone. It's an easy mistake to make, but it can just as easily lead to unjustified anger at people who very much aren't like Trump.
The article addresses this:
The point isn't to diagnose public figures like Trump, but to teach everyday people how to recognize the tactics and behaviors that psychopaths commonly exhibit. Trump doesn't have to be a clinical psychopath for you to pattern match his manipulation techniques and guard yourself against them — just like you don't need to diagnose the person you're dating to pick up on red flags like love-bombing or excessive jealousy.
That's a good quote, yeah. Though I'm not sure you and I are on the same wavelength — it sounds like your quote is agreeing with me?
In case it wasn't clear, my comment was directed at what Kerry56 said, not the article itself. I'm pointing out the same impulsive "diagnosing" that the article mentions there.
What I mean is that it's not enough to recognize that Trump is fascist. It's important to recognize the precise psychopathic (or at least psychopath-like) tactics he uses so that you can resist them. When he starts telling a "big lie", for example, the issue isn't (just) that he has bad politics, but that he's warping your understanding of reality — whether you agree with his politics or not.
Even if Trump had good politics, it would still important to recognize the ways he manipulates public discourse. There's nothing stopping a psychopath from getting into leftwing politics, after all. Someone as manipulative as Trump isn't married to the platform they espouse; their political alignment is just another tool they use to influence people.
Oh, I get you. I've watched several whole videos on this subject. I agree completely.
I suspect you may've misinterpreted my post as suggesting that calling Trump a psychopath was unfair; this wasn't what I meant and it's on me for not being clearer, as several others misinterpreted the same way.
I was just trying to say that it's bad habit to retroactively assign negative behaviors to people one dislikes upon learning about them, because other people aren't Trump, and you can end up with hate that has no good reason to exist.
I'm sorry my comment rubbed you the wrong way, but I was merely making an observation. Trump's personality traits fit neatly in the predatory personality described within the article. I'm not a psychologist, and not qualified to make a clinical judgement on whether he is a psychopath or not. That was not my point, or intention. The alignment of his personality and the traits listed does give one pause however, and should give better insight into how he functions and his motivations.
Hey, I'm not really disagreeing. Trump's awful, and I could definitely see him sharing traits with a psychopath.
I've just seen it happen before that folks will hear explanations for why people do bad things, and then retroactively apply it to those they don't like. For the specific case of Trump, it's no big deal because he is, as I said, a fascist. He's obviously terrible. I just don't want folks getting into the habit of this thinking, because it can lead to illogical hatred of other people who haven't earned it.
You can hate him for being a fascist while also identifying the fact that his personality traits align with the topic of this post.
Yes, and it would be much healthier to reach that conclusion with careful consideration as a matter of curiosity, rather than impulsively, or as an implicit justification for anger.
I can say I think he matches many of these traits, but I have a Master's in Counseling and 20 years of (mostly non-clinical) experience, plus about a decade of Trump to base that on.
It's not a reason to hate him, it's not a diagnosis, but it's worth noting the pattern I think and isn't inherently a flippant jump to conclusions. I get the concern you have here and in your other comment though and I think it's natural to see something like this and clock people in your life that it may apply to - even if they're public figures
Yeah, I've got no argument against calling specifically Trump out for psychopathic behavior. That's absolutely fair. I just want to caution people against doing on a more general basis.
And yeah, I would agree that it is pretty normal for people to do this. I just think it's a bit unsafe, you know? Since people have that whole negative perception thing I mentioned in my big comment elsewhere, I feel that it runs a risk of being a way for folks to create a false post-hoc justification for pre-existing hatred; not really a problem for someone like Trump who is undeniably terrible, more a possible problem for when that hatred might not be so fair.
Sure and most people misuse terms like narcissist, and psycho/sociopath etc. Or treat terms like they're diagnoses and they can understand them.
I think though, more so, especially with something like psychopathy, it's more a risk of adding an improper label to someone you don't like, than causing people to dislike someone due to said label. Which is mostly annoying in a "the public has found our words" sort of way. (Ala narcissism). Especially since it's not even really a diagnosis and no one wants to talk about ASPD instead.
But again, I get your broader point, and agree with it. Just think that belaboring the point about whether it's appropriate for Trump or not vs that broader point is less effective because he so clearly and totally demonstrates these traits.
We've had ten+ years to watch Trump's public behavior. I would hardly call this an impulsive reaction.
Calling Trump a psychopath isn't an impulsive thing itself at all, no. It's just generally poor form to call anyone you don't like a psychopath right after reading about traits of psychopaths, because that usually is an impulse. It's the general idea that I'm concerned with, not who it was about.
For me, the most terrifying is cluster 3 and 4. The other two, maybe the person is a kind of a jerk, or really impulsive, or kinda brain damaged, or just grew up really bad circumstances and you could feel pity for them.
Cluster One is completely normalized and expected shape of how all Confucius ideal parents/teachers/lords/emperor function. Top down authoritarianism. Your standard parent or teacher or politician has to be like this. They'll tell you they don't like it either but this is how society functions. Order of being, divine right of kings, religious authority structure, holy scriptures or the Constitution etc.
Cluster Two is the 80s go getter shark type, the competitive get ahead of you rival type, the zero sum world "lookin out for Number One" types. They might be good at this and even get joy out of being on top. This is just standard business suit financial world procedures: we are forced to interact with corporations as if they're people, and this is the type of people we are forced to be familiar with.
Three is where we see a relationship thoroughly and irredeemably break down. In a lot of fiction we see examples of making a contract with the devil, or summon a demon butler, or an alliance with the enemy, or say, the vampire is in love with you and won't eat your family etc. Lawful evil: they might equivocate or monkey paw you, but there are some ground rules of what is real and which way is up. With Cluster Three, you'll never get empathy because they simply dont see your reality. They have never once done anything to hurt, how could you be so vicious to accuse? They don't ever remember harm, only how kind they are and how generous and loving to you, hospitalised by their violence. The incidents you remember simply aren't true, and damn your video evidence or financial paper trail or a room with 100 witnesses, it just simply isn't true. Sure you can try telling someone but the facts are so bizarre, so pervasive and for so many years that every bystander will find it easier to doubt you instead of the dizzying array that simply isn't possible. You know how at a trial for child sexual abuse, sometimes the evidence is so horrific the prosecution limits how much the jury get exposed to, because they know when it's too much the human mind responds protectively by shutting down and insisting it can't be that bad? Being a victim of someone with Cluster Three is like that: bystanders have to shut down to regain their Just World equilibrium.
Cluster Four make a lot of sense to answer "how can they be like this": if they don't experience affinity, if they don't get joy from seeing others experience joy, or no joy when their child mature and gain confidence, their world becomes only about their own happiness.