Posted in PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

THE PSYCHOPATH TEST

The first characteristic of a psychopath according to the PCL-R is glib and superficial charm. Of course, this can be an apparently positive characteristic. This is not a trait motivated by a genuine interest or empathy for others, however, but allows psychopaths to charm and manipulate those around them, from work colleagues to romantic partnersGaslighting — whereby others are led to question their own actions and beliefs — may be a favored strategy.

Another key characteristic is a grandiose sense of self-worth. Of course, this profound sense of confidence or self-belief may explain why so many psychopaths appear to thrive in the cutthroat world of business. Unfortunately for their colleagues and “friends,” however, psychopaths also tend to make themselves look better by belittling those around them and may lie pathologically. Keep an eye out for narcissists.

Other criteria on the PCL-R checklist include a lack of remorse or guilt, callousness, a parasitic lifestyle, and promiscuous sexual behavior. Psychopaths, in short, tend to be risk takers and may be less likely to show, or feel, fear.

But they’re not always cool operators. One characteristic that is both obvious and common is poor behavioral control, which is perhaps linked to psychopaths being more likely to have a history of juvenile delinquency. Psychopaths tend to have a good eye for seeing and emulating how others behave, but they may also have outbursts of antisocial behavior.

Based on the above, my thought is that the Joker — or at least Arthur Fleck, the man behind the makeup — is only a borderline psychopath with other mental health problems that would warrant further investigation first. There are certainly more real-life psychopaths that would score higher in Hare’s test.

The key question is, based on the above, whether you might be one of them and how you intend to use these traits and skills.

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/60948-are-you-a-psychopath-20-traits-hare-checklist

Posted in Adultification, Borderline Personality Disorder, Dark Triad, Empath, Enabler, Machiavellianism, Oedipus Complex, PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Projection, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS, Sociopath

Boundaries and Dysfunctional Family Systems

A boundary is a barrier; something that separates two things. Walls, fences and cell membranes are examples of physical boundaries. Psychological boundaries can be said to exist too, even though such boundaries have no physical reality. Psychological boundaries are constructed of ideas, perceptions, beliefs and understandings that enable people to define not only their social group memberships, but also their own self-concepts and identities. Such boundaries are the basis by which people distinguish between “We” or “I” (group members; insiders; part of “Us”) and “Other” (outsiders and examples of what is “not-self”). Each person can be said to have a psychological identity boundary around themselves by which they distinguish themselves from other people. Like other boundaries, this identity boundary both separates people and also defines how they are linked together. This is to say that the act of drawing the boundary itself provides the basis for saying that one person is separate from another psychologically, but does so only by drawing a distinction between those two people, which implies a relationship, never the less. Self cannot exist without also “Not-self” existing, just as figure cannot exist without ground against which to contrast. Identity necessarily includes social relationships which are built into the self to varying degrees.

https://www.mentalhelp.net/psychotherapy/boundaries-and-dysfunctional-family-systems/

Posted in Adultification, Alienation, Borderline Personality Disorder, Dark Triad, Machiavellianism, Malignant Narcissism, NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder), Oedipus Complex, Pathological Lying, PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Projection, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS, Sociopath

Anger: An emotional driver of revenge

Aggression often occurs in response to some frustration (Berkowitz, 1989). However, aggressive revenge, more specifically, is thought to be driven by negative affects such as anger in response to some transgression (Harmon‐Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Anger is experienced as an unpleasant emotional state often associated with the approach motivational system (Harmon‐Jones, 2004; Harmon‐Jones, Schmeichel, Mennitt, & Harmon‐Jones, 2011; Threadgill & Gable, 2019a). Approach motivation, or the impetus to move toward some goal or object, is a fundamental dimension of affective states (Gable, Neal, & Threadgill, 2018; Gable, Threadgill, & Adams, 2016; Harmon‐Jones, Harmon‐Jones, & Price, 2013; Pizzagalli, Sherwood, Henriques, & Davidson, 2005; Ridderinkhof, 2017; Threadgill & Gable, 2018a2019b). Much research has associated anger with approach motivation (for review, see Carver & Harmon‐Jones, 2009). For example, anger is associated with approach‐motivated urges (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939; Harmon‐Jones, Price, Peterson, Gable, & Harmon‐Jones, 2013), approach‐oriented patterns of physiological responses (Jameison, Koslov, Nock, & Mendes, 2012) and relates to more approach‐motivated traits such as self‐assurance, strength, and bravery (Izard, 1991; Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Moreover, neural regions associated with approach motivation are activated during situational anger (see Gable & Poole, 2014; Gable, Poole, & Harmon‐Jones, 2015; Harmon‐Jones & Gable, 2018, for a review).

Past work has suggested that retaliatory aggression can be approach‐motivated. Harmon‐Jones and Sigelman (2001) found that, after an insult, participants who had greater left frontal alpha asymmetry, a neural correlate of approach motivation, engaged in more aggressive behavior. In contrast, participants who were led to believe that they could not act on their anger by taking actions to resolve an anger‐inducing event showed less left frontal alpha asymmetry than those who did expect to be able to resolve an anger‐inducing event (Harmon‐Jones, Sigelman, Bohlig, & Harmon‐Jones, 2003), suggesting that the ability to rectify an angering‐situation is approach‐motivating.

Other work has shown that participants rate aggressive responses after being provoked as more pleasurable than unjustified aggression (Ramirez, Bonniot‐Cabanac, & Cabanac, 2005). Chester et al. (2016) found that greater sensation‐seeking mediated the relationship between dopamine receptor gene polymorphisms (which is associated with reward seeking behaviors) and previous history of aggression. Additionally, retaliatory behaviors are associated with activity in the ventral striatum, a key component of the reward system in the brain (Chester & DeWall, 2018). Together, this work suggests that approach‐motivated anger is related to both aggressive behaviors and the experience of positive emotions, such as pleasure after aggression.

Based on this past work, an important next step in understanding revenge is to examine how anger impacts the experience of winning the opportunity for revenge. It seems likely that simply winning the opportunity for revenge may elicit emotional responses similar to the pleasant feelings elicited by partaking in revengeful behaviors. No past work has examined how anger impacts the rapid neural reactions to winning the opportunity to partake in revenge‐seeking behaviors. Therefore, we conducted two studies in which participants were made angry by an ostensible aggressor. Participants then engaged in a novel aggression paradigm where, on some trials, they were able to seek revenge against the offending individual, while, on other trials, participants simply beat their opponent in a reaction time game. The present studies sought to shed light on transitory reactions to winning the opportunity to seek revenge against a transgressor. To examine these momentary reactions to winning the ability to get revenge toward an angering situation, we examined the reward positivity (RewP), an ERP component that evaluates outcomes as either positive or negative.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.25177

Posted in PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

Revenge: An Analysis of Its Psychological Underpinnings

An overview of the literature and theories concerning revenge is presented in this study. The aim is to clarify the boundaries between a healthy and pathological way of dealing with revenge to improve diagnostics, with regard to both theory and clinical practice. Revenge is an intrapersonal phenomenon and the extent to which people need revenge has a certain degree of stability. A healthy way of dealing with revenge may restore the psychological balance that has previously been disturbed. However, the desire for revenge can be long-lasting and dysfunctional due to, among other things, early problems in development and specific personality traits. Consequently, a pathological way of dealing with revenge can be part of a disorder and can lead to destructive acts such as homicide and even mass murder. Some clinical examples are presented and points of attention regarding diagnostics and treatment are discussed.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306624X13519963?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.3

Posted in PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath

Anger, Feelings of Revenge, and Hate

In the current comment, I discuss what is unique about hate in relation to anger and feelings of revenge. It seems that hate can be distinguished from the related emotions anger and feelings of revenge by a difference in focus: Anger focuses on changing/restoring the unjust situation caused by another person, feelings of revenge focus on restoring the self, and hatred focuses on eliminating the hated person/group. Though grounded in existing literature, future research is needed to empirically confirm the unique characteristics of these three emotions.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1754073918783260#

Posted in Machiavellianism, Malignant Narcissism, Narcissism, PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

Personality and perceptions of the COVID-19 situation

Individual differences in the Big Five traits were measured with the Polish version (Topolewska, Skimina, Strus, Cieciuch, & Rowiński, 2014) of the 20-item International Personality Item Pool (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006), with four items per trait: Openness/Intellect (e.g., “I have a vivid imagination.”), Conscientiousness (e.g., “I get chores done right away.”), Extraversion (e.g., “I am the life of the party.”), Agreeableness (e.g., “I sympathize with others’ feelings.”), Neuroticism (e.g., “I get upset easily.”) where participants were asked their agreement (1 = strongly disagree5 = strongly agree). Items were averaged to create indexes of each trait.

Psychopathy was measured with the Polish version (see Rogoza & Cieciuch, 2019) of the Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The scale has 17 items (i.e., Factor 1) measuring individual differences in callous, manipulative and selfish use of others (e.g., “For me, what’s right is whatever I can go away with.”) and 10 (i.e., Factor 2) measuring impulsivity and limited behavioral control (e.g., “I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time.”). Participants were asked their agreement (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree) with the items which were averaged to create indexes of both factors.

Machiavellianism was measured with the Polish version (Pospiszyl, 2000) of the 20-item MACH-IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), where participants were asked how much they agreed (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) with statements such as: “It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there” and “People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.” The items were averaged to create a Machiavellianism index.

Narcissism was measured with the Polish version (Rogoza, Rogoza, & Wyszyńska, 2016) of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Back et al., 2013). The scale has nine items measuring individual differences in admiration (e.g., “I show others how special I am.”) and nine measuring rivalry (e.g., “I secretly take pleasure in the failure of my rivals.”) where participants were asked their agreement (1 = disagree completely; 6 = agree completely). Items were averaged to create indexes of each aspect.

Individual differences in the perceptions of the COVID-19 situation were measured with the S8* scale with all 40 items (Rauthman & Sherman, 2016). The scale was translated into Polish by three independent experts and then back-translated into English. The scale has five items for each of the eight dimensions: Duty (e.g., “A job needs to be done.”), Intellect (e.g., “Situation includes intellectual or cognitive stimuli.”), Adversity (e.g., “I am being blamed for something.”), Mating (e.g., “Potential sexual or romantic partners are present.”), pOsitivity (e.g., “The situation is pleasant.”), Negativity (e.g., “The situation could elicit stress.”), Deception(e.g., “It is possible to deceive someone.”), and Sociality (e.g., “Social interaction is possible.”). Participants were asked how much each statement applied (1 = not at all; 7 = totally) to the COVID-19 pandemic. Items were averaged to create indexes of each aspect.

Individual differences in compliance with governmental restrictions to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus were measured with a single item (in Polish). Participants reported the percent (1−100) to which they complied with the restrictions implemented by the Polish government. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886920303883

Posted in DESTRUCTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER, Psychological manipulation, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

What goes on in the mind of the Parental Alienator?

If we were to get into the mind of the alienator we would find some very sick and disorganized psychopathology. (typically a narcissistic/borderline and for men accompanied by psychopathy and a persecutory delusional system, for women a narcissistic/borderline and/or histrionic features). These people, both men and, women, were arrested at a very early stage of development. There are no/weak boundaries, impoverished ego strength, weak impulse control and reduced and sometimes delusional reality testing. Their path through life often carries that of a persecutory delusion-that is, they are the victim of a punishing parent and then an evil spouse and world. To them, everything is everyone else’s fault; they take no ownership for their behavior unless it glorifies them.  In fact, the rules that exist apply to everyone but them and following an illegal path is not unusual, especially in cases where psychopathy occurs (typically more in men). The typical dynamic is that of the narcissist/borderline where their sense of entitlement governs their behavior- a sense that is really to counteract the deep feelings of low self-esteem, unworthiness and, powerlessness.

Narcissists, being remarkably resistant in treatment, are often unable to “get it” and cannot see what helping professional, judges and authority figures during the divorce are telling them: they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their need to vindicate themselves and see themselves as the perfect parent is a strong survival issue and they will go to any lengths to do that, even it means hurting the child in the process.

That said, these parents who pretend to be perfect show themselves in the legal system. They ask for  more visitation, sometimes 100% visitation (finding any reason for the child not to visit), ask the child to testify (“hear my child, hear me”), cut off communication and show no co-parenting, cooperation and accountability with the targeted parent yet firmly adhere to the notion that they strongly encouraged visitation and the child refused.

One parent even sent the judge texts where he attempted to turn the child away (who was not yet turned away) that had harsh denigrating language about the other parent; in this case, the delusional system was so strong that he was even unable to see that this would work against him.  There is no end to their mission. Unfortunately, this is not a custody issue but a child protective issue; it is an issue of child abuse. https://drbarbarawinter.com/2015/03/01/parental-alienation-2-when-your-child-turns-away-inside-the-mind-of-the-alienator/

Posted in PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

Can Psychopaths Brains Be Fixed

Posted in Alienated children, Alienation, Parental Alienation PA, PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

Psychopathy Scales

Dr. Hare has spent over 35 years researching psychopathy and is the developer of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and a co-author of its derivatives, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), the P-Scan, the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), and the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD). He is also a co-author of the Guidelines for a Psychopathy Treatment Program. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, with demonstrated reliability and validity, is rapidly being adopted worldwide as the standard instrument for researchers and clinicians. The PCL-R and PCL:SV are strong predictors of recidivism, violence and response to therapeutic intervention. They play an important role in most recent risk-for-violence instruments. The PCL-R was reviewed in Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook (1995), as being the “state of the art” both clinically and in research use. In 2005, the Buros Mental Measurements Yearbook review listed the PCL-R as “a reliable and effective instrument for the measurement of psychopathy and is considered the ‘gold standard’ for measurement of psychopathy. Continue reading “Psychopathy Scales”

Posted in Alienation, PERSONALITY DISORDERS, Psychopath, PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS, Sociopath

“Without Conscience” Robert Hare’s Web Site devoted to the study of Psychopathy