Sociopaths in their natural habitat

The other day a commenter on the post Sociopaths you meet rather than read about told the story of how he'd known a sociopath and a psychiatrist had met this sociopath and given him the benefit of the doubt:

I've even seen a psychiatrist say this about someone after I outed him as a sociopath (having lived with him for a month, the psych having only met him for an hour). She was all "him, a sociopath? I don't believe that. He might be a Borderline, but I doubt he's a sociopath". It's really discouraging when not even psychiatrists realise that sociopaths look like perfectly ordinary citizens....

The fact is, there are a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists who don't really understand sociopaths. Trying to learn about sociopaths in a clinical setting is a little like trying to learn about the hunting habits of the tiger by watching one in a zoo. A sociopath always knows why he is in that clinical setting, and therefore is on his guard and will not act like himself.

And psychologists are only human: they are as susceptible to manipulation as anyone else.

I've known two sociopaths well. One was a quasi-girlfriend I had when I was 25, the other was a boss I had on Wall Street. I got to observe both over an extended period of time. I saw how they operated, how they lied, how they used people, how they saw themselves, how they never took blame, the types of excuses they used, how they never got nervous, how they never got embarrassed. I saw how destructive they were, and how they loved to facilitate others' failure whenever they thought they could get away with it.

I also saw how even people who had been exposed to them for a long time remained blind to their true natures (like me, at first, with that girlfriend). But it's one thing for a layperson to remain blind to sociopathy, it's another for someone who's a professional in the field.

While Bill Clinton was President, I asked two psychiatrists I knew if they thought he was a sociopath. Both were Democrats, and to their credit, both somewhat sheepishly admitted that he was. (Sheepishness is one quality sociopaths themselves never exhibit, and is often the hallmark of a decent person.)

But many psychology students, clinical therapists, and even psychiatrists are often surprisingly naive about sociopaths. Even when they understand the concept of sociopathy they will, as the commenter above noted, give them the benefit of the doubt when there really is no doubt. Sometimes they'll act as if a diagnosis of sociopathy is unwarranted for any behavior short of serial killing.

Sometimes they'll try to draw moral distinctions between the sociopaths they deem personally attractive and those they don't (i.e., that somehow the fat, ugly, self-righteous John Wayne Gacy was more loathsome than the handsome, charming Ted Bundy).

And sometimes they'll let their political attitudes influence their diagnoses. ("Bill Clinton? I don't think so....Newt Gingrich? Absolutely!!")

Sometimes they'll even let a brief personal contact influence their opinion ("He said he thinks I'm smart; he must be a nice guy. And he seems so.....ordinary.")

Sociopathy has nothing to do with attractiveness, or political bent, and probably has little to do with the little snapshot you got if you met them briefly.

To really understand sociopaths, you have to have observed them in their natural setting over an extended period of time. You have to become well versed in their typical subterfuges and patterns of behavior. And even then, you have to understand that you can't necessarily recognize them at first.

(People who do this kind of "field work" almost never do it on a voluntary basis.)

Don't ever think that just because someone is a psychologist or psychiatrist of one sort or another, he understands sociopaths. He has merely observed chimps in a zoo. Or even worse, has read about them in a book.

To really understand sociopaths, you have to be Jane Goodall.