One of the things I expressed curiosity about in the first post about Jackie Coakley was her parents.
While looking for news about Jackie Coakley last night, I stumbled across this excerpt from the original Rolling Stone article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely:
Jackie had a strained relationship with her father, in whose eyes she'd never felt good enough, and always responded by exceeding expectations – honor roll, swim team, first-chair violin – becoming the role model for her two younger brothers.
Where would Erdely have heard this? Obviously, from Coakley. So it can't be taken at face value -- except for the description of Coakley's relationship with her father as "strained." That much is probably true: even if they'd had a good relationship, which seems unlikely, characterizing it to a national audience as "strained" would by itself be enough to put a strain it.
It's doubtful that anyone who's ever lived has always exceeded expectations; but we can mark that down to sloppiness by Erdely.
The most telling part of the excerpt was the way Erdely describes Coakley as a "role model" for her two younger brothers. Again, this is something she could only have heard from Coakley. Only one type of person refers to herself a role "model," and actually sees herself as an inspiration to others: a narcissist. (Sociopaths are a subset of narcissists.)
Anyway, the snapshots of Coakley's personality continue to fall into a consistent pattern, as they always do with a sociopath.
Coakley won't be turning into a serial killer, despite not having the slightest concern for others' lives. (Her fantasies seem to revolve more around being raped.) But, whatever her path in life, three dynamics will never change: her instinctive dishonesty, her craving for sympathy, and her inability to feel shame.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I usually find your posts on sociopaths and their behavioral patterns quite interesting and enlightening - and amusing at times. Do you think a person can become a sociopath? And, can a sociopath control himself/herself to live a normal life, without hurting others?
Thanks in advance!
Anon --
Thank you.
No, I don't think someone can "become" a sociopath later in life. Sociopathy is generally what results when a child (an infant, really) fails to form a bond with another human being, early in life. If this bond hasn't been formed within the first year of life, then that infant is often incapable of forming meaningful bonds for the rest of his or her life. This is why so many well-meaning adoptive parents who adopt a small child from an orphanage who's one year old or older and shower the child with love, are still left with a monster on their hands.
A sociopath can rein himself in for short periods, and pretend to be non-socipathic for a while, but in the long run their true natures will always emerge and express themselves, one way or another. The key point here is that not hurting others is simply not a concern for them. It would be like you or me deciding we're going to be very gentle to the furniture from now on. We might stick with that noble intent for a day or two, but in the long run, we'd end up banging around like usual because we know, deep down inside, that the furniture is only there for our comfort.
Is it possible to not form that bond and not become sociopath?
Or perhaps some people bond easier than others..?
Can you have affectionate, attentive parents and still become one?
Steven --
All those things are possible. But as a generally, the bonding-within-the-first-year-of-life rule hold true.
btw john, copper poisoning along with certain other medical conditions can induce a state like psychopathy in people. just fyi
I remember years and years ago (in the early 90's), my sister worked at a Catholic run group home for girls. She told me a story about one of the girls. Apparently, this girl's adoptive parents were trying to un-adopt her due to her being a difficult person. She burned her parents house down for some reason. At the time I heard this story, I didn't know enough about sociopaths (having just had the book learning via classes @ college). Today, my hunch is that this girl was a bonafide sociopath. When people adopt, they truly are at risk for bringing disordered people into their homes.
-birdie
Birdie --
Thank you, that's a perfect example of the phenomenon I described above. The girl was probably one or more by the time she was adopted, and it was too late for her to develop as anything but a sociopath. (Generally, burning a house down is a pretty good indication of that.)
These poor well-meaning parents end up experiencing something out of a horror movie.
Evidently many of the parents who adopted kids from Romanian orphanages back in the '80's and 90's ended up having the same problem. The newly adopted child would threaten to kill his siblings, threaten to burn down the house, etc. Then people would blame the adoptive parents for having done something wrong, but they were genially blameless. All they had done was adopt a devil.
Anon --
Thank you, yes, I should have mentioned that there are organic conditions that can cause sociopathy, basically, anything that damages the frontal lobe. Phineas Gage was the best example of that.
I hadn't heard of copper poisoning before, though. Interesting.
The no bond as a baby hypothesis seems adequate to explain sociopathy...why need there be genetic predispositions and how do we know that is a thing?
oh btw a few years ago I read about a female adoptee who as a teenager was part of a group who tortured and murdered a woman. The whole article was about how the parents had been incredibly steadfast, patient and benevolent and basically tried to do everything for her but she was always disruptive and troubled and quite nasty. At about 14, she offered sex to the adult male next door neighbour. Then she went on to violent assaults.
Steven --
There are definitely genetic predispositions, and hormonal dispositions as well. (Males are morel likely to be sociopaths.) The idea is that some people are by nature more fearless, so are harder to condition socially. And the frontal lobe is the part of the brain that controls inhibitions, which are related to the ability to feel remorse, etc.
Look up Phineas Gage. he "became" a sociopath later in life because of a railroad spike which went through the front part of his brain.
I believe that the vast majority of sociopaths become that way primarily because they never formed a bond with a parent; but there are other factors. The female adoptee you refer to is probably a good example of that.
Glad to see you commenting on this Jackie person.
I suspect the author of the article, Sabrina, may also be a sociopath. How could she submit such a incredible story without speaking to Jackie's friends ? and then claim to have fact checked the story ? Sabrina sounds like a pathological liar...to claim Jackie sounded credible and to pretend she tried to talk to Jackie's friends...these are obvious deceptions.
it is was easy for the WP to interview Jackie's 3 friends who picked he up the night of the supposed rape...why did Sabrina make no attempt to question them ?
I conclude that she new the story was BS , so it would have been foolish to check the facts and would have hurt the credibility of Jackie, which her story depended on.
Jova --
You're the second person this evening who's suggested that possibility (that Erdely is a sociopath). Seems like I'm getting outvoted. But let me tell you what I told the other commenter (who commented on the original "sociopath alert" post about Jackie:
I agree that Erdely is dishonest. But there seem to be a lot of liberals who are dishonest the way she is, cherry picking their "facts" and looking at only one side of a story. Could she be a sociopath? I suppose it's possible, though I really think that if she were, she could have "smelled" out Jackie as one, and would have avoided her. (Sociopaths can almost always suss each other out.) Erdely wanted to present a one-sided, biased story, no question, but she certainly didn't want to be held up to public mockery as she has been for the past week. This incident will tar her reputation for the rest of her career. So my guess is she's not one, since she didn't completely see through Jackie.
it seems Sabrina knew Jackie was lying, which is why she made no attempt to interview any friends who could have contradicted Jackie..
Sabrina would have to be very dumb to believe 9 fraternity brothers would rape a sober college student as part of a pledge initiation...and he friends refused to help her ...too many obvious lies in they story
The media is able to make a hero out of Michael Brown , despite video evidence demonstrating he was a thug. The Media turned Trayvon Martin into a child and victim...She thought she could get away with another hoax...the media deceptions are so common today , I am surprised she got caught this time.
Jova --
You're right, Erdely was dishonest; I'm not debating that. All liberals are, they have to believe what they do. The question is, is she a sociopath? And to some extent, that hinges on the extent to which she believed her own lies. I think she was so eager to believe the worst of those fraternity boys that she allowed herself to believe Jackie. She may have realized that she was stretching the truth? Did she believe she was making it up out of whole cloth? I just don't know. Plus, in order for me to say someone's a sociopath, I have to see more than run of the mill dishonesty and hypocrisy. It has to have that distinct sociopathic flavor, meaning, it has to be really extreme. So far, what I've seen of Erdely just says run of the mill liberal hypocrite.
I agree with you, btw, about how the media twists everything, e.g., Trayvon and Michael Brown, etc.
understood
thanks for the clarification.
as a former member of a Fraternity, I suppose it was easier for me to see this story was based on lies...I lived in a Frat house for 4 years, on fraternity row, so I did observe some bad behavior at fraternities. Group sex did occur, with willing females, usually everyone was drunk, but was never more than 3 guys involved.
I recall one Fraternity brother trying to get other guys to bang his girlfriend with him....only 1 or 2 guys took him up on the offer, most guys though it was strange and were not interested, even though his girlfriend was attractive and willing to experiment ...it soon emerged that this brother was queer
another time a brother picked up 2 drunk girls in a bar and brought them back to the house, he recruited another brother and they had a foursome in our basement..The President of the frat wanted him kicked out of the house , because he accidentally walked in on the "orgy" in the basement and felt it was not appropriate activity in our billiards room.
it would be almost impossible to get 5 Fraternity brothers to have sex group sex with a willing female, let alone getting 9 college kids to rape a girl.
Jova --
Wow, those are some stories. I've never understand group sex; I think the presence of other guys would prevent me from getting a hard on.
Agreed, the idea that nine guys would do something lilke that as part of an initiation is utterly insane. They'd have to know that it would result in the fraternity getting disbanded, not to mention them going to jail.
even if the girls was willing and stated that she wanted all the brothers to have sex with her , few college boys would be interested when I was in college...in today's climate I suspect even less Fraternity members would partake in group sex with a willing female..due to the high risk of rape charges.
I remembered another instance at a frat party, where a girl wanted to have sex with multiple brothers. Only one brother bothered to copulate with her...and she was upset when no other brothers wanted to join in...we had to kick her out of the house as she became disruptive.
Jova --
I don't blame those guys. The whole "sloppy seconds" thing never appealed to me, either.
Post a Comment