Keys To Spotting Self-Involvement

[Magus]

Bonsoir Mes Amis et Amies,
The Magus Bids You Fondest Greetings from the Swamps of Eugnosia,

Ah, pardon, please do Good ReaderFriends and Forumites, the absence of this old fellow these last many days. It is sometimes too true that flesh will not always do as one would bid it to do. Alas, even a Magus sometimes has to take time off. But, let us onwards go to the goodies he has prepared for you, his Gifts of Mind thought upon long and well in this time out, from a profound desire to help you be safer and wiser on your Seekers' Quests one and all. For your Quests are the Doings of Hope for us all.

What a quandry and a question, asked and worried by many here: How to Know, Dearest Dear Ones if 'tis a psychophage you face, one who would consume a feast of your Soul if not avoided post haste? Does this not burn to be answered Bold SeekerFriends of mine? First Know this then, their Masks, while deft and fancifully bedecked with trappings of apparent Human traits and care, are NOT perfected in their Pretenses. Mais non, mes enfants. Let you heed well now a means to See some of the cracks and discolortations there upon.

And, ere we commence your brief lesson, dispense to you your new Seeing tools, take Warning, Full Warning of this FACT first. Truth is this: No one can, without the close personal encounter that risks far too much, such as the Soul eaten unto death of the Being Entire, a fate near done unto The Gracious and Fair Maestra Laura herself by the unholy psychophages, and is she not, oh my Treasured Travelers Here, MORE, so far more filled with Knowledge and Power than any of us yet have attained? Mind this caution then, ReaderFriends. No one of you, never, no not ever, not a single one of you should dare by intent to venture into any psychophge's lair of Lies, for you may not Be, yet, that one in a million so strong and learnéd as to survive and come back out again. Do not you beard the lions of psychopathy by design. They will assault you anon and enough without your ever Seeking out their hideous wiles and guiles.

What comes to you now is to teach you when to Take Heed and Flee from the company of those who may not possessed of True Conscience be. While no definitive means has yet been devised for a "quick study" detection of psychopathy, the Magus has one to disclose the nearest, primary characteristic that is associated with that foul Soul-Eating Disease. The fundamental trait of those who consume others as their Raison D'etre is Pathological Selfishness, which can be Seen and Heard by observing and making note of the Trait of Habitual Self-Involvement.

'Tis a simple matter of Words Mes Amis et Amies, powerful and revealing Words. There are but 2 Sets of Words you must listen and read for well: 1) "I, ME, MY, MINE, MYSELF"; 2) "WE, US, OURS, OURSELVES, OTHERS & TOPICS ALL." Which Set does strike your eye or ear more than half the time, whenever there is not strictly personal information and experience being told. Do not fail to note the difference in claimed subject matter. If one is telling of one's own expriences and Being, one does and must use the Words of Set 1, most legitimately. However, when the topic is information not originating with or about the communicating individual, when, most of all, factual information is alleged to be the topic, then note how often do appear the "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine" Words.

The more self-involved is a person, the more often appear those Words. For the extremely self-involved, no matter what the actual, factual topic may have been, for them it will be how "I, Me, My, Myself, and Mine" relates to, feels about, thinks about, likes or dislikes, or whatever, about the topic: It becomes all about "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine" and not really the factually nominal topic at all.

And note you well too, observe you and See, watch you for those who deftly always Turn Topics To "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine." That is the second "trick" of the pathlogically selfish person's Unmind, to always Make Self the Subject Within A Short Time, no matter where, or upon what note began the communication.

The more this is True for any person, whether sopken or written matters not, the more deeply self-involved is he or she. The deeper the self-involvement, the higher the probability that psychopathy therein resides. There you have it all, my Cherished SeekerPeople. One Simple Seeing and Hearing Tool we all can utilize to detect those with whom the risk is much too high.

Good Night and Good Discoverings To All,
Magus

 

[Laura]

Actually, the psychopath is quite capable of pretending to be so interested in another that the victim is completely unaware that they are being "had." The operations of the "covert aggressive" come immediately to mind (see George Simon's book: Wolves in Sheep's Clothing). Martha Stout also points out, quite accurately, the the CHIEF clue that one is being "had" is the "pity ploy."

Barbara Hort has written an excellent book entitled: "Unholy Hungers" which delves into this topic from the point of view of Jungian psychology. I'm not sure she realizes the significance of what she has written in relation to psychopathy, but the descriptions often fit "to a T."

It may seem incomprehensible that a powerful person could be victimized by a psychic vampire who seems to be completely disempowered. Yet there are few lures more potent for a powerful champion than rescuing a grateful waif in distress. How exciting it is to save someone from the jaws of tragedy, particularly if the recipient is adoring and appreciative! You, the noble champion, journey alone down the desolate nighttime road, when there appears by the wayside a sweet little mist who is weeping in loneliness and alluring despair. Any, you think, here is a perfect chance for me to put my sword to its proper use! Here is someone to save! And how charmingly pathetic she is! Perhaps there will be some love for me at the end of the heroic rescue! Your sword flashes up, and you dash to her aid - slaying all foes, fixing all woes, and paying each bill that she hands you. You parry and thrust past the point of exhaustion, for two adoring eyes are watching and their owner must not be let down. Onward you march, beyond fatigue, beyond all means, until your every resource is spent. But still you fight on, despite your depletion, to rescue the sweet, helpless mist, for how could you let down the poor little ting? Whatever would become of the helpless mist without your sword to defend her against the great cruel world?

The dance between an empowered masculine victim and the feminine vampire who hides under the veil of vulnerability may be the most insidious vampiric duet of them all. So many of us have gone to our physical, financial, and spiritual ends, never realizing that we have been duped, never relenting in the deployment of our swords, never stanching the flow of our blood, and all for the sake of a pitiable feminine vampire. How can we be so powerful and yet so blind? But really, our gullibility is no mystery. When we embark on the path of the Champion, when we don the armor of empowerment, we expect our vampires also to be draped in the cloak of power. We never suspect that a vampire might veil itself in the guise of weakness and vulnerability. What's more, when the Champion [archetype] is active in our psyches, we strive to serve those less fortunate than ourselves, so when we come upon the sweet mist by the side of the road, is it any wonder that we bleed on its behalf? What a cruel ruse this is, for in fact the mist is a vampire who will feed on us by exploiting the very nobility on which our Championhood is based. [....]

In the beginning, the man was happy to rescue the pathetic damsel, who, coincidentally, had just one or two more little traumas that she hoped he would be kind enough to rectify. Thus began a long series of heroic rescues, each of which was appreciated by the woman only long enough to resuscitate her hero before his next valorous deed. Eventually, the man could not shake off the growing suspicion that he was being used, and he began to simmer with resentment and anger. Of course, he did not want to wound the poor woman, so he tried in the gentlest way possible to regain a little of his power. But when the woman's sugary tactics foiled his efforts, the former champion was transformed by his rage and frustration into a control-hungry abuser. On the receiving end of this ugly transformation was the vampiric damsel, who was reduced by the man's fury into an epitome of the long-suffering though undeserving martyr. At the sight of her eloquent pain, the man was wracked with remorse and self-recrimination and he vowed never again to turn on the pathetic creature whose rescue was his very purpose in life. The man submitted a humble apology to his beloved, and then retreated into his original heroic position, mumbling to himself that he was lucky to have such an appreciative, deserving audience.

But just because the man had apologized did not mean that the duet immediately reverted to its original form. His mate, skilled at this particular dance, realized that t whole new ration of blood could be sucked out of any remorseful champion who was attempting to apologize: as long as the woman refused to accept the man's apology, she could remain in the role of a righteous martyr whose suffering could demand any price in return for her gift of absolution. ....

The feminine vampire fashions a web of importuning vulnerability, a web that is as fragile in appearance and as resilient in reality as a spider's web covered with droplets of mist. The deceptive fragility of the feminine vampire's web lures many of us into a sticky tangle of heroism and guilt. ...

The web is sweetly appreciative, but cloying and demanding as well. Our uneasiness evolves into something like dread, though we cannot say exactly what is so dreadful about the web's grateful embrace. And then, perhaps after many years (though sometimes not at all), a moment may come when we awaken to the presence that lurks on the edge of the gossamer wheel. While we had previously seen nothing but silken rainbows, we now realize that something else is on the web. Something is making the web tremble, and we find ourselves trembling along with the strands to which we are bound. Now the presence is moving onto the web from which we cannot break free. Softly, deliberately, she is coming, picking her way across the lacy mandala, bearing her great mass gently upon her bent and spindly legs. She is savoring her moment, for she knows that we have entered into an endgame that we've already lost. Indeed, she has refined this endgame to an art as intricate and complex as her web. As she delicately edges toward us, we recognize with sinking horror the truth of who she is. ...

In A Dictionary of Symbols, (1971), J. E. Cirlot interprets the image of the spider at the center of her web to represent the Gnostic notion that "evil is not only at the periphery of the Wheel of Transformations but in its very centre... The image is that of the Gorgon Medusa...

Gender is not the key element of this dance. ... The key element is the embezzlement of an empowered victim's blood by a vampire who operates under the veil of vulnerability. ...

[W]hen we identify with an archetype, we take ourselves to be the incarnation of a god or goddess rather than remembering that we are simply a mortal coil through which the immortal power passes. When we commit hubris and identify with an archetype, we are likely to be perverted or incinerated by the divine power as it possesses, deforms, and finally obliterates our human identities. ....

There are innumerable men and women whose inner champions have been enlisted to serve the "vulnerable" feminine vampires in their fathers, lovers, children, and colleagues of both genders.

In all these cases, the empowered victim perceives that life has bestowed on him or her some opportunities that the feminine vampire never had. For the pitiful vampire's sake, the victim strives to excel in ways that are not personally meaningful, because turning aside to other, more meaningful pursuits feels like a deadly abandonment of the poor, disadvantaged vampire. …

There are several requirements for those of us who wish to emulate Perseus in deactivating the feminine vampire.

The first is that we must be able to sense the Medusan viper that lurks under the veil of imploring vulnerability, just as we must detect the ravenous shark that lurks underneath Dracula’s cloak of sensual sophistication. Note that I use the word “sense” rather than “see”: the myth tells us that it is extremely dangerous to look directly on the truth of this entity, for the vision will immobilize and destroy us, just as mice are immobilized by the serpent’s gaze….

The key is to approach the vampire as Perseus does – reflectively. If we have spent time in the company of someone who is infected with the feminine vampire, we already have some Medusan behavior on which to reflect. By engaging in reflective exercises, we can safely bring the light of our consciousness to bear on the monster we wish to deactivate, without looking her full in the face and risking petrification.

In reflection, we may ask ourselves a few illuminating questions: Have there been any moments of rage in which she has turned us to stone with a glare? Does a serpentine hiss ever creep into her voice, no matter how sweetly the words were spoken? Has she looked on us with a reptilian coolness to germinate the seeds of our guilt? Have we been pulled by our compassion to give more than is in us to give, again and again? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we are probably dealing with a feminine vampire.

If these images evoke your compassion, remember that Medusa’s story is a pathetic one too, but that does not lessen her dangerousness….

We must hold the image of Perseus close to our hearts and remember that if he had dropped his guard, let his attention waver for a moment, or glanced backward out of guilt or compassion, then he would have been transformed into yet another of Medusa’s yard ornaments.

In closing, looking for the "me" factor in words is not a very good clue. It can sometimes take years to know that one is in the clutches of a feminine vampire type. It is only when you see that the actions and words don't match that you begin to sense what is really there...

 

[Guest]

What comes to you now is to teach you when to Take Heed and Flee from the company of those who may not possessed of True Conscience be. While no definitive means has yet been devised for a "quick study" detection of psychopathy, the Magus has one to disclose the nearest, primary characteristic that is associated with that foul Soul-Eating Disease. The fundamental trait of those who consume others as their Raison D'etre is Pathological Selfishness, which can be Seen and Heard by observing and making note of the Trait of Habitual Self-Involvement.

'Tis a simple matter of Words Mes Amis et Amies, powerful and revealing Words. There are but 2 Sets of Words you must listen and read for well: 1) "I, ME, MY, MINE, MYSELF"; 2) "WE, US, OURS, OURSELVES, OTHERS & TOPICS ALL." Which Set does strike your eye or ear more than half the time, whenever there is not strictly personal information and experience being told. Do not fail to note the difference in claimed subject matter. If one is telling of one's own expriences and Being, one does and must use the Words of Set 1, most legitimately. However, when the topic is information not originating with or about the communicating individual, when, most of all, factual information is alleged to be the topic, then note how often do appear the "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine" Words.

The more self-involved is a person, the more often appear those Words. For the extremely self-involved, no matter what the actual, factual topic may have been, for them it will be how "I, Me, My, Myself, and Mine" relates to, feels about, thinks about, likes or dislikes, or whatever, about the topic: It becomes all about "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine" and not really the factually nominal topic at all.

Unfortunately, Master Magus, there is nothing stopping the psychopath from being inspired by your eloquent exposition and confronting a sincere individual with their own use of personal pronouns. I may be describing one of my many experiences to my psychopathic comrade, for the purpose of discussion and illumunation. I may be referencing the experience as mine and may be speaking about myself primarily as it is my experience, and he or she, instead of listening to provide constructive response, may instead begin counting the frequency of nasty M-words in the cake of my verbal or written presentation to finally pounce on me when I place just one "I" too many upon the frosting of what I am trying to convey.

Instead of dialogue then, he or she could respond with a righteous rebuke claiming to have revealed my nefarious "psychopathic" and "soul-less" nature. And, if I have taken your suggestions to heart, then what can I do? Fall upon my knees begging forgiveness? Admit that my life has been a sham, and that I have been living an illusion of psychic integrity? Kill myself as the unworthy scum that my comrade has apparently proven I am? At best I would have to admit that even though ensouled, I have strayed from the path and must correct the error of my ways by henceforth keeping tabs on what I say and being my own censor.

Right or wrong, however, I have to say that this is not my way. I find it limiting to both censor and control my own expression in such a manner, as well as to pay attention to key words in the expression of another, similar to how certain NSA software scans our communications networks for "suspicious" words.

Although your suggestion makes sense on the surface, such a path of looking for simple and convenient signs and portents to identify an enemy has often led to unsavory developments where the innocent have suffered. Being an individual prone to insight, you may have already considered that to identify psychopaths it would perhaps be more prudent to utilize a potential which they do not possess, and which they can only superficially mimic.

This potential, IMO, is empathy, the ability to feel the inner state of another. Empathy is manipulated by psychopaths when we do not use it properly, but instead project our inner state onto another. Instead of putting ourselves in their shoes, in other words, we force them to wear our shoes, and call it compassion. Empathy, however, can be an instrument of objective perception, even if it belongs to the emotion body. It may not be pleasant (which is probably why we tend to project in the first place), but we can use our empathic potential to feel if another possesses a soul or not.

Such may not be easy, but when developed it can be far more reliable than exoteric guidlines of which the psychopath is a far more proficient master of manipulation than you or I. Methinks, sir, that this may be a path worth consideration.

 

[Laura]

Unfortunately, Master Magus, there is nothing stopping the psychopath from being inspired by your eloquent exposition and confronting a sincere individual with their own use of personal pronouns. I may be describing one of my many experiences to my psychopathic comrade, for the purpose of discussion and illumunation. I may be referencing the experience as mine and may be speaking about myself primarily as it is my experience, and he or she, instead of listening to provide constructive response, may instead begin counting the frequency of nasty M-words in the cake of my verbal or written presentation to finally pounce on me when I place just one "I" too many upon the frosting of what I am trying to convey.

Instead of dialogue then, he or she could respond with a righteous rebuke claiming to have revealed my nefarious "psychopathic" and "soul-less" nature. And, if I have taken your suggestions to heart, then what can I do? Fall upon my knees begging forgiveness? Admit that my life has been a sham, and that I have been living an illusion of psychic integrity? Kill myself as the unworthy scum that my comrade has apparently proven I am? At best I would have to admit that even though ensouled, I have strayed from the path and must correct the error of my ways by henceforth keeping tabs on what I say and being my own censor.

I had to chuckle at this EQ! Indeed, by Magus' "checklist" I need to be taken behind the barn and shot. I have only my own experiences to share and I'm hardpressed to discover how to write about them without referring to myself.

 

[Charles]

I have the impression that further specification of Magus's heed has been overlooked.

'Tis a simple matter of Words Mes Amis et Amies, powerful and revealing Words. There are but 2 Sets of Words you must listen and read for well: 1) "I, ME, MY, MINE, MYSELF"; 2) "WE, US, OURS, OURSELVES, OTHERS & TOPICS ALL." Which Set does strike your eye or ear more than half the time, whenever there is not strictly personal information and experience being told. Do not fail to note the difference in claimed subject matter. If one is telling of one's own expriences and Being, one does and must use the Words of Set 1, most legitimately. However, when the topic is information not originating with or about the communicating individual, when, most of all, factual information is alleged to be the topic, then note how often do appear the "I, Me, My, Myself and Mine" Words.
Magus

But I agree that it is a very poor reading tool to spot psychophages (loved the invention of that term!). After all, aren't we all (still) full of the little self. And is it not such that most people that consistently pull any form of conversation to themselves are precisely those people who suffer from an extreme low self-esteem?

I personally prefer EsoQuest's reading tool.

Being an individual prone to insight, you may have already considered that to identify psychopaths it would perhaps be more prudent to utilize a potential which they do not possess, and which they can only superficially mimic.

This potential, IMO, is empathy, the ability to feel the inner state of another. Empathy is manipulated by psychopaths when we do not use it properly, but instead project our inner state onto another. Instead of putting ourselves in their shoes, in other words, we force them to wear our shoes, and call it compassion. Empathy, however, can be an instrument of objective perception, even if it belongs to the emotion body. It may not be pleasant (which is probably why we tend to project in the first place), but we can use our empathic potential to feel if another possesses a soul or not.

Such may not be easy, but when developed it can be far more reliable than exoteric guidlines of which the psychopath is a far more proficient master of manipulation than you or I. Methinks, sir, that this may be a path worth consideration.

I am not sure if I understand you well Esoquest. I will try to translate it using my own wordings. Maybe you can than confirm whether I am unto the same thing?

The idea would be to use ones personal empathy to feel the state of another. The first question that comes up than is what exactly we are supposed to feel when the other is indeed a psychopath? Icy cold emptyness? Agression? Indifference? That is if we would use empathy in the right way without projection, as you warned for. That alone, however, is a difficult task already, and definately not something that can easily be used as a general tool for everybody.
But the thing is that even if we use it the right way, the feeling (maybe emptyness) that we would read from the psyhopath is maybe so scary that we would revert back to wrong empathy or projection of our own state in no time at all. Not just this, but as you said, the psychopath would 'take in' our empathy, and he/she would simply mirror it back to ourselves. And what is more, by mirroring it back to us we'd be basking in self importance before we would realise, to be in the presence of such shiny example ourselves !! haha just imagine. Okay, but I think that self observation does or could allow us to see this rescuscitated narcicism appearing in ourselves, so that we can decide to conclude, close off, and maybe get the hell out of there.

So far my personal translation of what I have interpreted from your wordings. Am I possibly speaking about the same thing?

Maybe it is safer to stay on a purely cognitive relation with such suspected psychophages, and as a test use this setting to test the poor psychopath under our microscope whether it has any empathy, without us giving anything at all so that they can not feed on our empathy? Maybe it is much safer, and more discriminatory. The problem I see here is that we don't know whether the seemingly entire lack of empathy is not coming from a normal person, or an OP that is severely under the influence of pathocracy, to hit us with a statement like: "ohh I think we should shoot them all, and nuke em out of existence" or something along these lines. It's incredibly sad but true :(

Maybe what follows could also be used as a potential reading tool for spotting psychophages, or severe STS influence.

You remember Marc Dutroux, child raper, and killer from Belgium?
Before he actually started imprisoning girls to use them as his personal toys, he used to go to a Polish village where he used an ice-skating rink as one of his hunting grounds. He also started 'befriending' a polish man who didn’t know anything of what the future was going to be for this Dutroux. One day the Polish acquaintance was invited to Dutroux' house in Belgium. It is then, standing in front of one of his houses, that this polish guy became very weary. Something was fishy, but he couldn’t put his finger on it. He stated that in retrospect he still gets scared as he remembers that merely being in the environment of Marc Dutroux had this bizarre narcotic effect on him, as if his physical presence somehow could snuff away his awareness.

Of course, to see such dampening effect on oneself, one has to be in time before the narcotic effect takes hold.

 

[anart]

It seems that we may be forgetting that the basic nature of psychophages limits our ability to detect them - other wise our world would not be in the shape that it is in - although our study of them is highly productive and informative, we can't assume to know who is and who is not a psychophage without A LOT of interaction and information.

Empathy, however, can be an instrument of objective perception, even if it belongs to the emotion body.

I think this may be a bit of a dangerous assumption. When a psychophage feigns pain and suffering, they do it very very well - and my empathetic response may well be that they are in pain, so I feel the pain - when, all the while, there was no real pain being experienced by the psychophage. Doesn't this automatically make empathy a subjective phenonmenon? The objective fact is that the psychophage is pretending to be hurt - the empathetic response is a feeling of pain for the psychophage - thus is it not an objectively true response. I do agree that using elements of the psychophage's personality that they do not have to help to identify them is a more logical way to go, I just don't know that one's empathic feelings could be used with a high degree of accuracy. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems that paying close attention to their words versus their actions would be a much more clear cut way to go - or so it seems to me.

 

[Lucy]

It seems that we may be forgetting that the basic nature of psychophages limits our ability to detect them - other wise our world would not be in the shape that it is in - although our study of them is highly productive and informative, we can't assume to know who is and who is not a psychophage without A LOT of interaction and information.

Empathy, however, can be an instrument of objective perception, even if it belongs to the emotion body.

I do agree that using elements of the psychophage's personality that they do not have to help to identify them is a more logical way to go, I just don't know that one's empathic feelings could be used with a high degree of accuracy. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems that paying close attention to their words versus their actions would be a much more clear cut way to go - or so it seems to me.

I agree anart, especially if the psychophage is a loved one. For me completely disregarding the emotional responses they were eliciting and willing myself to pay strict attention to those things I could identify as truth --such as: their words don't match their actions-- was THE important 'first step' I took. Objectivity came to me by degrees. But first I had to set aside my emotional responses...I couldn't trust them.

Perhaps with a psychophage who is not so 'close' there would be a better chance of staying objective while using emotional perception. But with parents, spouses, children, siblings, etc., our emotional responses may have been programmed into us by those very persons. They may know them better than we do.

Or so it was in my situation, anyway.

Lucy

 

[Justin]

When their words don't match their actions, especially if there is a huge variance between the two, that is a sure sign to keep looking for more clues. Certainly many people's words don't match their actions to varying degrees, however the disparity between words and actions and the consistency with which this occurs would likely be most severe with psychopaths. IMO

As far as indicators or tests to reveal the true nature of such a person, I thought of one - but I'm not sure how accurate or how feasible it would be…

Since psychopaths generally display empathy as a set of behaviors designed to mimic real empathy and elicit some kind of response, would they display this faux empathy with strangers or while alone? It would be a bit hard to test, but my guess is that they would not display false empathy unless there was something to be gained from it.

 

[Ruth]

It seems that we may be forgetting that the basic nature of psychophages limits our ability to detect them - other wise our world would not be in the shape that it is in - although our study of them is highly productive and informative, we can't assume to know who is and who is not a psychophage without A LOT of interaction and information.

I understand what a psychopath is... but a psychophage...?

It seems to me that with all the literature available on 'what is a psychopath' people who want to know should be able to find out easily enough if they wish to. People who don't know, simply aren't aware for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to know.

I am WORKING on my understanding of what an OP is using observation and a few very unverifiable 'clues' from the Cs. That's all I've got to work on! All the while realising that in any observation if I have filters, lenses, emotional responses or even rose coloured glasses on, I'm not going to be observing much of any interest and may actually become part of the 'landscape' which I am trying to observe. Which isn't very helpful for my 'seeing' ability at all. I believe it was the Cs who said something like OPs are not recognisable without long and careful observation. Doing this, using solidly defined criteria (which we don't have), its no wonder its got to be long and careful. But mixing terms like psychopath, OP, and 'souled' STS person, without a sound understanding of what each is, is not going to be very objective because, as far as I can see we have very little to go on.

But now to the problem with terms. What is a psychophage? An OP? A psychopath? An STS 'souled' individual which, by the way, is you and me (and don't you forget it)!

If people just took the time to make their observations of others and their own environments into more of a 'science experiment' and less like a 'recipe' or list for anybody else except themselves or others whom they are exluding by subjective means, then they may begin to see more and react less which would be a good thing.

Here's a thing on a qualitative research strategy known as: ethnography. We are limited to qualitative research - as quantitiative (number cruching and measurable data) are not easily obtainable in the field concerned with OPs, psychopaths and all others.

Ethnographic research, often described as "participant observation", has long been the domain of the cultural anthropologist. Such research requires that the researcher be physically present among the subjects during the data gathering phase of the research process. The ethnographer attempts to describe the culture of a group through in-depth study, involving systematic observation of the group's activities, language, and customs.
Taken from:
Dempsey, P.A. & Dempsey, A.D. (1992) 'Nursing Research with Basic Statistical Applications'(3rd ed.). Boston: Jones and Barlett

And this all has to happen with very few 'clues'. Any 'researcher' or observer has to be keenly aware that they can easily become part of the thing or culture they are trying to observe, because, if they're not aware, then that's the first thing that usually happens. And any objectivity gets sacrificed and data gets distorted in the process.

My request would be - don't make up terms and don't mix them. First seek to define (through study) that which you have, using that which you already know (little as it is). Otherwise it just gets too 'heated' and defeats the purpose of 'discovery' whilst distorting reception of objective input into the 'subjective'. This post is directed at everyone.

 

[Lucy]

It seems that we may be forgetting that the basic nature of psychophages limits our ability to detect them - other wise our world would not be in the shape that it is in - although our study of them is highly productive and informative, we can't assume to know who is and who is not a psychophage without A LOT of interaction and information.

I understand what a psychopath is... but a psychophage...? [...] What is a psychophage? An OP? A psychopath? An STS 'souled' individual which, by the way, is you and me (and don't you forget it)!

If people just took the time to make their observations of others and their own environments into more of a 'science experiment' and less like a 'recipe' or list for anybody else except themselves or others whom they are exluding by subjective means, then they may begin to see more and react less which would be a good thing.

The term "psychophage" can be found in this discussion:
Index > Political Ponerology » Living with a psychopath
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=60.msg1426#msg1426
where it is used here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=60.msg200#msg200

Notice that the psychopath is able to use his "special knowledge" to "deaden the thought processes self-defense capabilities" of the normal person.

Well, what if this is not entirely psychological? What if certain behaviors trigger the evolutionary survival mechanism that is part of the older structures of the brain? What if this paralysis, this catatonia is similar to the "freezing" of the mouse when it encounters the cat?

The other thing of note is where Lobaczewski says that, while the person is "frozen" and effectively helpless, the "divergent experiential method anchors in the mind" of the normal person. For a long time I have noticed this phenomenon which I always described as "putting psychic hooks" into a person. This is actually a terrible thing because it is similar to the cat reaching out with a paw and holding the mouse down to begin toying with it prior to eating.

And that is whay I have used the term "psychophage," which is a much better word for what we call a "psychopath" because it means, literally, "Soul Eater."

So there IS a precedent for the use of this particular word. I can assure you, Ruth, that anart and I didn't just randomly decide to use "psychophage" in this discussion. Nor did we use it as a way of "excluding" anyone on this forum by "subjective means."

It seems to me that with all the literature available on 'what is a psychopath' people who want to know should be able to find out easily enough if they wish to. People who don't know, simply aren't aware for whatever reason. Maybe they don't want to know.

When the psychopath, or psychophage, happens to be a parent, child or romantic partner, then no, there may not be a 'desire' to know, or to face, the truth. That is an extremely painful situation, and is, imo, one of the reasons psychopaths are so often 'inserted' into our lives in this way. And, in reference to Laura's quote above, perhaps after prolonged exposure to the psychopath a person may have acccumulated many "psychic hooks" in them, easily allowing the psychopath to continue to "play with them." So even someone who "wants" to know may have a tough time doing so, especially if it is true that the situation is not only psychological, but also physiological, in that it can ""deaden the thought processes self-defense capabilities" of the normal person.

Osit.

Lucy

 

[Lucy]

When their words don't match their actions, especially if there is a huge variance between the two, that is a sure sign to keep looking for more clues. Certainly many people's words don't match their actions to varying degrees, however the disparity between words and actions and the consistency with which this occurs would likely be most severe with psychopaths. IMO

And also sometimes most insidious, manipulative, veiled, and even charmingly sophisticated, making it very hard to detect, especially when the particular relationship dynamics involved are taken into account. For instance, a psychopathic parent not only has the opportunity to 'act' in severe variance with their 'words' in a situation where the children are not able to protest, but also they have a prolonged opportunity to 'program' their children to accept the psychopath's version of 'normal' as the real thing. Also they have ample opportunities to deaden their children's natural defense thought processes; they have a long period and many opportunities to insert "psychic hooks" that keep the children easy prey and easy to play with. In this case, the term psychophage, or soul eater seems particularly apt.

Since psychopaths generally display empathy as a set of behaviors designed to mimic real empathy and elicit some kind of response, would they display this faux empathy with strangers or while alone? It would be a bit hard to test, but my guess is that they would not display false empathy unless there was something to be gained from it.

I tend to agree with you. For one thing any 'empathy' a psychopath displays is thought to be a 'reflection', since they actually have none of their own. So there is an 'interaction' implied in this situation. Also if STS takes the 'easiest' path available to them, then why would a psychopath bother to exert themselves when it isn't necessary, or won't bring them a 'return'?

So much to consider!

Lucy

 

[Magus]

Good Tidings Forumites and Reader Friends,

What a wonderful feast of responses, and so many thoughtful points well made, a cause to celebrate indeed. Why? Because, mes amis et amies, it says that Truly you do treat with utmost respect and pensiveness this subject of the psychophages, their characteropathic, sociopathic and personality disordered kin, and the damages they will do. That is no small degree of Awareness, and it is shown here by more than a few. It bespeaks a Work in progress that has thus far been done more than well. The Fact that many who respnded are well beyond the needing of the simple tools given last night is cause enough to bring Joy to this heart of mine.

Ah now, to one or two of the objections and faults found with what was shared. To be sure, 'twas but a simplification of subjects far wider and deeper than but that small entry. And, alas, there too came a tiny trace of our so very Human predeliction to read and know selectively, noting that which least or most is liked, perhaps, and not at all other phrases of equal measure in the whole. 'Tis but how we all suffer the plight of filtered awareness, partial perceptions and overlooked portions of all that we encounter while we yet mortals Be and not yet standing fully atop the last Step of the Stairs, so to speak.

First, Maestra Laura, there is every good reason that you could and must place your own experiences before us, in your own Words and Voice, for they are of vital importance to all who would tread the Path of Truths your steps have pioneered for Humanity's edification and hope.

Note, please do, Magus wrote: "Do not fail to note the difference in claimed subject matter. If one is telling of one's own expriences and Being, one does and must use the Words of Set 1, most legitimately."

And in this there is no suggestion that you ought or could do else, in order to give to us all your hard won and crucial Truths, my Good Lady Bold, nor for any other who Seeks to impart personal Knowings encountered in Seeking, than to write of them in the First Person entire. Likewise when sharing those thoughts come of your Wisdom to guide us well, how else could you write of them but as yourself? We cannot share ourselves with others but by our personal recountings, n'est ce pas?

To others who think invalid the advice provided last night, this too seems to have been neglected a mite: "While no definitive means has yet been devised for a "quick study" detection of psychopathy, the Magus has one to disclose the nearest, primary characteristic that is associated with that foul Soul-Eating Disease. The fundamental trait of those who consume others as their Raison D'etre is Pathological Selfishness, which can be Seen and Heard by observing and making note of the Trait of Habitual Self-Involvement. "

This is, of course, not saying, making no such claim at all, that there are not other means to detect danger signs of psychopathy. These are but means to detect the possible presence of Malignant Selfishness as displayed in Verbal communication habits only, in situations such as conversations with persons newly met, web postings, chat rooms, and other online and real life contacts. And here Magus owes apologies to all for failing to make clear that these simple tools are but for preliminary use, to be kept in Mind as a help when other alarms might not yet consciously sound to alert one that potential danger is near, especially for the novice but recently come to the Quest, the earlier the warning the better.

Let us now also note that this Trait dominates among various types of characteropathic, sociopathic and other narcissistic personality disorders that afflict those persons most likely to march in near lock step with their more potent psychophagic kin, and who also do enourmous emotional and psychological damages to those not like unto themselves but of the Normative Human Empathic type who become closely involved with them, or who are arbitrarily placed into such involvement by birth family, or other enforced associations.

As to the psychopath's devastating artistry for deceit, that was not included here, for this was meant to give tools for use in more distant and still casual contacts. Again with apologies, for 'twas indeed not made clear, the Magus has written Warnings of those who seem too caring, too good, and too perfect to be true, or who are so very pitiful and in such terrible need of our own, and no one else's help, in other postings than this. These be but parts of a far larger whole, and but one small set of tools for use within what must become a large and broad "defensive arsenal" of Awareness that we develop and expand ever and well until Discernment is won, over much time and with great efforts in the Seeking, Learning and Practice of countless other Lessons. In a sincere desire to provide a small bit of "distant warning radar" to the Novice Seeker, the saying of less was not this time not the best saying.

Lastly, as to the poorness of this tool, that may be True or not. The behaviours of selfishness occur along a contimuum. At one end is the near saint who may almost never use words of direct self reference except within the narrowest confines of telling personal tales of direct relationship to the broader topic, which accounts for the vast majority of Maestra Laura's first person discourses, as they are well and truly pertaining to many, far broader and deeper topics galore, and are necessary as illuminative narrative. In Fact, they stand as excellent examples of First Person communication that is NOT of the selfish type. A good example to use as a basis for comparison can be found in noting exactly how this rule of illuminating the larger topic through personal narrative, as driectly opposite to the purpose of making the self the sole topic at hand without regard for anything else at all, runs through all of the Maestra's Works.

On the other end of the continuum is the pathologically selfish person who will find a means to place the self at the center, as the sole focal point of any topical discussion, no matter how far removed from the original subject the personal narrative then becomes. The proof is that the topic does become far and quickly removed from the original focus once the reader's or listener's attention is obtained and has been diverted and limited to the Pathologically Selfish individual's Self Focus. It will not be allowed return to the original focus without great resistance, and without efforts being made to turn it away again and again, right back onto the Self Focus once more. Such exchanges will feel and resonate as a "battle" or a "strain" or, very telling indeed, seem "draining" to the Normative Empathic Human, and these simple Word cues can then help to bring into Conscious Awareness what may really be going on.

Once this Self-Focus has become the topic, once the reader's or listener's attention has been obtained and centered entirely on the Self, then comes in all of the deceits, manipulations, cunning lies, flattery and psuedo-identifications, the pity me, and the other mind games that can rope the unwary into hellish bonds. 'Twas to help some neophytes in the Seeking to perhaps Hear the Selfishness soon enough to avoid the roping that these tools were shared.

While it is True that there is no good thing of and from which the Soul Vacant and Twisted cannot make a bad thing based thereupon and mimicking it. To heed the "flavour" and focus of them, in the first, earliest stages of new contacts then, may give us warnings to observe a bit longer, not rush in, and to pay a closer and different attention to the messages, both as to content and intent. To reject any useful method simply for being able to extrapolate the means by which the Enemy can twist and abuse it does not seem a very good choice. They have twisted and abused every Good Deed and Knowing and Truth ever done, found by or revealed to Humanity, and of course there shall never be an exception to that rule for so long as they are with us and free to do their thing. It IS their Nature.

There is still the Truth that those who do care for, about and with others are also able and willing for others be the focus and subject of their own attentions, actions and thoughts during interactions, discussions, conversations and correspondences on at least a 50/50 basis. Even those of us for whom the selfishness that has been conditioned into us all by this world's essentially Insane dominant cultures is still present there is this Nature of Sharing within us. Those who are patholgically selfish cannot consistently maintain that pretense of other focus either at those levels or for the long term, and will usually give themselves away in the earliest stages, while still shopping for the next sucker to drain dry, by the fact of their turning the focus to themselves, one way or another, as their means of drawing that sucker in for the feast.

Tell me, do please, of one "Pity Me" play, verbally delivered, that does NOT contain loads of "I, Me, My, Myself and MIne" messages and that does not require grabbing hold of any original topic which began the exchange and twisting it to make the topic into "Oh, Poor, Pitiful ME?" That is also True of many another pathologically manipulative gambit. While all else in psychopathic, characteropathic, sociopathic and other kinds of Pathologically Selfish individuals' "tool chests" will soon come into play, the majority of Human contacts and associations do begin with and through Words. The first tools used by the Pathological to reel in the new "fish" most of the time is Words. Are Words not, for nearly all of us, the first means by which we begin to Know one another?

Good Seeking to All,
Magus

 

[Mr. Premise]

IMO, selfishness, self-centeredness, or self involvement are distinct from psychopathy.

A psychopath will often not talk at all about him or herself, because their intent is to exploit and manipulate and that is best done by appearing to care about the other.

The pity play often comes into play when they are discovered in some way.

Also, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between a psychopath (someone with no conscience) and a negatively polarized STS person. A psychopath doesn't necessarily have a desire to cause harm. They just don't care whether or not they cause harm to another. For example, there are psychopaths who have been treated well during childhood. Most people focus, when thinking about psychopaths, on those who have been mistreated and become cruel. I think the other type is harder to distinguish, because it might not come into play in one's interactions with them unless your interest and theirs diverge.

That type, the generally happy psychopath, is hard to distinguish and IMO this can only be done with long knowledge of them, for example a friend from your youth you have known for years and have seen during their formative years in unguarded moments.

I remember an old friend from my college days who quoted his father as telling him, "everyone would cheat on their spouse if they knew they could get away with it." I remember thinking, this isn't true, what about the tormenting guilt? Well, this guy's father may not have had a conscience, a possibility I didn't believe at the time.

His father was not a "bad guy" in the socially conventional sense, he just didn't have a conscience. And, if his father's life weren't comfortable, it might come into greater relief (this happens with soldiers or people who rise to great power).

What Magus is looking for is what the poker players call 'tells,' something that gives away a bluff, but the whole point of psychopaths (and great poker players) is that they don't have tells.

That is why Laura insists upon sharing information with other people, so you know how the person speaks about you when you are not around and if their actions don't match up with their words.

I wonder, though, if a tell could be "microexpressions" those extremely brief facial expressions that appear right before the fake one is put on the face? Or if effective psychopaths don't even have microexpressions.

 

[Guest]

I am not sure if I understand you well Esoquest.

I don't blame you. I wanted to express why I thought Magus's suggestion, although sounding reasonable on the surface, can actually lead to more problems, and then offer an alternative direction in a few words. Understanding and applying effective keys to spotting OP's, psychopaths and others who are not healthy souled individuals, is another complex and deep issue that connot simply be resolved with a convenient "how to" list that we can take home and put to use like some cooking recipie.

Let me try to elaborate by first expressing the premise of my disagreement with Magus. In my opinion, we should refrain from trying to identify the pathologicals using methods that they can mimic or otherwise turn against us. In other words, I believe if we are to be effective in making distinctions (and it is important that we learn to do so), we need something that those "others" do not have and cannot access. Otherwise, ANY criteria we adopt can be used as more ammunition for the pathological, psychopathic, pathophagic or however you want to call it, person to use against us.

I will try to maintain continuity in this message, although I have to admit it is more like a train of thought that I tried to keep as organized as I could. As such, my thoughts will extend in a few directions, which I will try to bring together in describing how empathy can help here (and it is simpler than it sounds), and what can help the feeling sense to function without fail.

I will, therefore, try to develop with my train of thought, step by step. There are difficulties in digesting this topic (or humanity would have resolved the issue long ago), and I may be overly ambitious in thinking that I can unravel potential confusion here, but I will do my best.

From what I have read in the SOTT material, and from what I understand, there are two things that distinguish the individualized, ensouled and healthy individual from those "others" of the various categories discussed in other threads in this forum. One is the ability to feel and experience emotions, which is not the same as the ability to express and act out emotions, i.e. the ability to feel. The other is the ability to empathize.

Empathy is defined as feeling the emotions of another as if they were your own. According to this definition, we need to distinguish empathy from the dynamic of "feeling for another", which is experiencing emotions you would feel if hypothetically you were placed in the circumstances of the other. This distinction is important, because true empathy is a psychic or soul ability, while the second case of feeling for another involves feelings triggered through imagination.

The second case, IMO, is also the closest OP's and even psychopaths can get to understanding true empathy. In the case of psychopaths imagination is used to assess emotional queues as references for generating a behavioural map of the emotion-capable person. It's something actors do at drama school. And it works.

Case in point: We have all (or most of us at least) experienced being in a movie theater and shedding a tear during a particularly touching scene. If we had bothered to look around, we may have seen that most everyone in the theater was shedding tears, and some even profusely. The question is, what causes this?

Certainly not empathy. Not only are we responding to light patterns on a screen, but the patterns conveyed are all lies (officially called acting). We are not feeling into anything because there is nothing to feel into. We are taking body and verbal language queues from the liars (actors) on the screen and use our imagination in doing so as an emotional stimulator. One can call this emotional masturbation.

Furthermore, those of us familiar with the categories of human types expressed in this forum, notice that the large proportion of people exibiting emotional response to images of hypocrites (the Ancient Greek word for actors) on a screen must include OP's as well as indivualized humans. As an aside, I have read about and even met self-professed "magicians" claiming to go to theaters to absorb the ambient emotions into their bodies through the solar plexus. They claimed it envigorated them.

I was interested myself in this movie theater phenomenon of collective emotion, and often went into that environmnet with the intent of being an objective observer. I discovered that the tone of emotion during the theater experience was different than that one feels with another individualized person. It felt as if it was being forced upon me, as if I was compelled to resonate in response to an applied vibration. At first I thought it was the collective field of the people in the theater influencing me, but I noticed the same "push to emote" when watching movies alone on the DVD player.

Was this something "beamed" by the movie itself, an accumulation of emotional energy from all those who watched it before me, or my own "hardwired" subconscious forced to respond to external queues? I cannot say for sure. What I do know is that a good actor uses his or her imagination to get into an emotional state and forces their body to simulate emotive response, including flushing, tears, trembling, vains popping out on their face, sweat and a variety of responses that cannot be easily elicited from one moment to the next.

Although they are the result of observing dramatic expressions, the "emotions" of a movie-viewer are much shallower than true feeling, while for the OP they probably represent the very definition of feeling. By the time the movie is over, the last tear is usually wiped, and the average movie-viewer goes about their business as if nothing had happened, although they do tend to savor the memory of the experience as a thing of value.

Research done on the chemical constituency of tears reveals that tears of joy, sadness, rage and the kinds caused by the wind and cold all have a different chemical composition, also different from the tears of a hypocrite. Now those who have souls may disagree with me and protest, justifiably, that they have shed tears while watching movies, and nobody can tell them that the experience was not real. That may be so because the truly emotive person subconsciously (or consciously through sheer identification with the actor) triggers some corresponding memory of emotion to fuel the response instigated by the presented queues.

In other words, we have two dynamics here in the ensouled individual. The capacity to feel, and the capacity shared by all other humans to stimulate the body into emotional simulation through imagination, either passive through the receiving of queues or actively willed. The difference between the OP and the ensouled here is that the OP will "recover" far quicker, while feelings tend to linger for the ensouled. The psychopath will either laugh at both of these for being "weak" or join in the emotive dance to fit in for whatever reason.

I presented this drawn out description to show that what constitutes true empathy is easily misunderstood. Because it is misunderstood the media can manipulate even ensouled individuals with images whether these are based on fact or are outright lies. The psychopath does exactly the same thing as a media image in real-time. As such, the psychopath can simulate anybody's "how to be normal" list, and on top of that play the role of a one-man or woman blockbuster epic to pull our strings while we are busy looking for key words or revealing body language.

Instead, like the media does on a grander scale, the psychopath gives us a preformance that can defy anything we know or think we know about how they are or are not supposed to act. I need to qualify this assessment with the understanding that Magus is at least partially correct in his view when that involves "scratched" pychopaths, who tend to rant into incoherence and constant egoistic reference, but this is obvious from the overall expression, and cannot be analyzed easily into identifiable indicators. Durand was a case in point here. He seldom used the words I, Me or My, but nobody here can deny the guy was foaming at the mouth.

So I come back to my distinction between individualized souls and the "others" discussed in the forum. The one is the ability to feel emotion as opposed to expressing it, and the other is the ability to empathize, which is different than imagining or projecting oneself in the situation of another. I do not intend to discredit this latter quality, by the way, because it can lead to understanding of another's circumstances (with reference to one's self always), and that is undeniably useful. It can also, however, lead to misunderstanding and being manipulated by those who can feed us with calculated queues and pull our strings.

I have said that if we want to deal with psychopaths, we need to understand what they can use as ammunition against us, and what is completely beyond their grasp. They can manipulate any and all externally oriented queues and stimuli. They can puppet their bodies and minds to perform with confounding accuracy regarding the movie they want us to swallow. Notice of all the potenial technologies that could have been developed over the last century, instead of clean energy, real health-promoting medicine, truly enlightening education and environmental solutions, we have had a profound development of means for violence and means for deception and manipulation.

It stands to reason the psychopaths will finance technologies reflecting their greatest "talents" (the promotion of chaos and manipulation). It also stands to reason that by understanding and learning to deal with the psychopath as an individual we can move to deal with the collective version called pathocracy. It is because I consider this understanding important that I am being a bit long-winded here, so please bear with me.

It seems the forum and SOTT in general have already proposed methods of identifying psychopaths. From what I understand, however, these involve having to run the psychopathic gauntlet, to be with the psychopath until they essentially slip up. This includes the possibility that the psychopath can inflict damage by the time we get wise to him/her. We may come out unscathed or at least a bit bruised a few times, but in this day and age of psychopaths crawling out of the woodwork it seems a bit risky to wait until a Marc Dutroux under whatever guise has us cornered.

My suggestion was actually inspired by Magus' worthy motive to spot and identify the psychopath before they can exert influence. In my last job, I worked under a psychopath and suffered a lot because I signed contracts and made commitments. If I could have identified the concealed tyrant from the first interview I could have spared myself a lot of anguish.

I was once attatched to a psychopathic girlfriend. Call me stupid for falling for such a person, but it sure would have been nice to identify her at the first conversation, before things got heavy. Psychopaths know that they are vulnerable in the beginning of contact with sincere people, before they begin to feed and manipulate. They know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. First contact with a psychopath is an opportunity for sincere people to spare themselves a lot of pain, so its worth examining.

I realize I am preaching to the choir here, and I do so to address the next point. What I described previous is how the psychopath can manipulate our emotional projection into other circumstances, which is often mistaken for empathy. Let's examine empathy proper here, at least from my point of view.

I think this may be a bit of a dangerous assumption. When a psychophage feigns pain and suffering, they do it very very well - and my empathetic response may well be that they are in pain, so I feel the pain - when, all the while, there was no real pain being experienced by the psychophage. Doesn't this automatically make empathy a subjective phenonmenon? The objective fact is that the psychophage is pretending to be hurt - the empathetic response is a feeling of pain for the psychophage - thus is it not an objectively true response. I do agree that using elements of the psychophage's personality that they do not have to help to identify them is a more logical way to go, I just don't know that one's empathic feelings could be used with a high degree of accuracy.

You are right anart, it IS a dangerous proposal (although I do not consider it an assumption). It is dangerous as driving a car on a busy street. Statistically, the number of auto accidents every year should make driving daunting, and yet those who drive do so because they must, and because they know that skill, caution and attention can be learned to minimize the risk.

In this case, the danger arises not from empathy, but from imagining oneself in the psychopath's place, which is unrealistic for any healthy person.

Also I am only presenting this in the context of a dialogue spiraling toward understanding, not as some kind of ultimatum. On the other hand, dealing with psychopaths is dangerous no matter how you address it, and getting more dangerous every day as crises in society mount.

Also...

When the psychopath, or psychophage, happens to be a parent, child or romantic partner, then no, there may not be a 'desire' to know, or to face, the truth. That is an extremely painful situation, and is, imo, one of the reasons psychopaths are so often 'inserted' into our lives in this way. And, in reference to Laura's quote above, perhaps after prolonged exposure to the psychopath a person may have acccumulated many "psychic hooks" in them, easily allowing the psychopath to continue to "play with them." So even someone who "wants" to know may have a tough time doing so, especially if it is true that the situation is not only psychological, but also physiological, in that it can ""deaden the thought processes self-defense capabilities" of the normal person.

So the more we interact with the psychopath, the worse it is.

To get to the meat of the matter, clear objective observation is indeed invaluable, and I will not deny it. OP's and psychopaths tend to give themselves away, and of the two (unless triggered by STS) OP's are normally harmless, and can be identified through their adherence to social structures, what other people think (although not necessarily), a need for a credo or list of "truths" to follow and a shallowness that can easily be observed when one is not hesitant to affirm the depth potential of one's own feelings and aspirations.

Pre-scratched psychopaths are much harder to identify because they are actively concealing, while the OP takes their state as a given of normalcy (the OP often emphasizes being "normal"), and mistrust concepts such as following your heart or a sense of proper conduct independent of external structures or traditions.

Unlike the psychopath of any variety, the healthy OP expresses what is true to his or her nature, often quite honestly. To recognize the OP as well as the psychopath, I feel it is important to know thyself. In the case of the OP, I found identification is fairly easy when I can discard social conventions of what is normal and simply be honest with the depth of my being, which then comes into contrast with OP shallowness. In the case of OP's (the non-psychotic variety), I believe we tend to hurt ourselves more than they overtly hurt us because we keep expecting more from them than they can give.

Many ensouled are, furthermore, tortured souls because they try to convince themselves they are OP's and follow the shallow OP way to feel "normal" and accepted. Being ensouled in an OP majority is like being gay, and being afraid of coming out of the closet.

In addition, one does not run the risks with OP's that one runs with psychopaths, provided there is self-acceptance of one's ensouled state, and an awareness of knowing oneself.

Regarding psychopaths, however, self-knowldge and self-acceptance are also a must, and that goes without saying. If you have experience with OP's and identifying them, it helps in dealing with psychopaths, because identifying OP's also implies identifying yourself intimately in comparison to them. The first weapon in the arsenal against the psychopath is, therefore, self-knowledge (which implies self-acceptance). It is a true weapon because they cannot use it against you when it is properly rooted (i.e., you have no doubts about who you are).

Self-knowledge, itself rooted in uncompromising self-honesty, is a prerequisite for even considering true empathy as an organ of objective perception. Without a necessary degree of self-knowledge, empathy easily can be confused with imagination.

Anart mentioned that the very concept of using empathy as a means to detect the psychopath is an exercise in subjectivity. This is true given the atrophied state of the average (ensouled) human emotional body, the lack of self-knowledge and the manipulative nature of the psychopath that blurrs the line between objective and subjective. I need to note here, however, that the psychopath does not really manipulate emotions, since the psychopath has none. What the psychopath does is manipulate our imagination and perception of the situation to cause us to manipulate our own emotions in their favour, just like the media does.

The psychopath hijacks our imagination and turns it against us. When we are in touch with our own inner world and know ourselves, and our healthy responses and values as well as our weaknesses and needs, we can tell when the master-story teller psychopath is trying to weave our imagination against us. Since the psychopath is baiting us in the beginning, we can be suspicious when what they say sounds a bit like a tale designed to awe and amaze. The psychopath, after all, seeks to impress.

Modes of mental observation, however, are secondary and play a supportive role regarding the psychopath. Self knowledge allows us to own our imagination, and we can trust our "spider sense" to inform us if a psychopath is trying to give us an "emotional hand-job" (pardon the expression). We can sense this because the psychopath will try to breach our emotional integrity no matter how that is sugar-coated. The psychopath will try to seduce us, in one way or another, and trying to explain this in a cut and dry manner is like trying to tell somebody how you can tell the difference between sincere affection and seduction.

Even all of the above, however, implies some extended contact with the psychopath. Using empathy as a psychic sense of perception, on the other hand, takes the above requirements as prerequisites so that we can hold our own while identifying the psychopath as such.

It is possible to "get into" the inner world of the psychopath and get an undeniable confirmation of his or her insanity. Fortunately, this is not necessary. I was meditating with a psychopath once and we were describing our experiences when he brought up the concept of god. It seemed, "god" was inhibiting his experience, so I told him to simply ignore god. I convincingly said: "There is no god, take it from me". This person knew me to be sincere, and I expressed this to remove the fear/guilt inhibition, which I mistakenly assumed was sincere in turn.

Well, as we continued to meditate I saw him turn toward me, and what impacted me was the psychopath unafraid. He convinced himself all too readily that the concept of punishment or karma is an illusion and what was held in came out, and he tried to project it at me with a gaze that was not cold but reminded me of a boiling pestilent swamp. I was not stabbed by a penetrating look, but all of the sudden I was (in my imagination) as an insignificant speck in the face of a pus-like wave of hateful entropy, rotting everything it touched.

In fact, psychopathy in my opinion as a tangible presence one can feel from the insane carrier is not a single pattern or state, but a wide spectrum of entropic potential from extreme cold and sharp to extreme hot and lava-like and even luke-warm patterns of rot, corruption and pestilence in between.

It is possible to develop self mastery to hold one's own against this core psychopathic presentation, and even push it the other way and face the psychopath with their own insanity. But that is truly making "dangerous assumptions", and neither here nor there I think.

The point is that it does not have to go that far if you recognize the initial sense of discomfort the psychopath causes, and you can recognize it through experience and observation of your own empathic sense in the face of the psychopathic boundary of first contact. Initially, the time may take to be sure you are dealing with a psychopath may be long enough to do damage because one is not sure and does not trust those initial feelings of unease, which seem to have no rational explanation.

Eventually, however, when we have experienced enough of the psychopaths in our lives, we can learn to recognize those initial impulses for what they are without having to go through the pain of giving the psychopath the benefit of the doubt. Thus, we do not need to enter the psychopath's world, just touch the outer boundary of it, and realize that it does not feel good nor "right", because the world of the psychopath does not feel right at all from a soul perspective.

It is a subtle feeling, and until it can become stronger through practice, self-knowledge protects us from the psychopathic attempts at manipulating our imagination, which begins from the first moment of contact. And it is difficult when we are already under prolonged pschopathic influence. In that sense, empathic recognition is best applied during initial contact, and is more prevention than cure.

Like I said, its a complex topic, and this is simply an attempt to clarify my view on it.

 

[Laura]

Anart mentioned that the very concept of using empathy as a means to detect the psychopath is an exercise in subjectivity. This is true given the atrophied state of the average (ensouled) human emotional body, the lack of self-knowledge and the manipulative nature of the psychopath that blurrs the line between objective and subjective. I need to note here, however, that the psychopath does not really manipulate emotions, since the psychopath has none. What the psychopath does is manipulate our imagination and perception of the situation to cause us to manipulate our own emotions in their favour, just like the media does.

The psychopath hijacks our imagination and turns it against us. When we are in touch with our own inner world and know ourselves, and our healthy responses and values as well as our weaknesses and needs, we can tell when the master-story teller psychopath is trying to weave our imagination against us. Since the psychopath is baiting us in the beginning, we can be suspicious when what they say sounds a bit like a tale designed to awe and amaze. The psychopath, after all, seeks to impress.

I've put in bold a couple of things above that stand out as extremely apt descriptions of the process and the intent. Martha Stout has said that the great joy of the psychopath is to "put one over" on their victim. Lobaczewski says they "effect heartless experiments," presumably for their own amusement.

I'll never forget my own state when under the "influence" of Vincent Bridges. Fortunately, the C's were there to give the clues. But even when I had those clues, I truly did not want to believe it. After all, the guy was so smoothe, so knowledgable, so complimetary and complementary, and the involvement had proceeded to such a point that it was going to be very uncomfortable to extricate ourselves.

I remember sitting there while Ark and our friend from Amsterdam (who was visiting at the time) played the tape of Bridges voice over and over and over again for me to listen and really understand what I was hearing. It was like coming out of a fog to finally grasp the import of it. (You can read about it and listen to a short excerpt that makes the point here: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/mirror.htm)

Much water has gone over the dam and under the bridge since then. QFG has spent a LOT of time discussing the subject, analyzing experiences, researching, comparing notes, going over texts that we know have been produced by psychopaths with a fine tooth comb, and so on.

With some psychopaths, you can detect something from their writing very early, but those are generally the kind that are somewhat "loosely put together," for lack of a better way to describe it. The really good ones - such as Bridges and others like him that we have encountered, can only be detected by - as Anart says, seeing that their words don't match their deeds OR by comparing notes and discovering that the story they tell one person is different from the story they tell another person. You can then devise little "tests" to confirm your suspicions.

But that is just when dealing with psychopaths in the virtual world which CAN be more difficult than in person. On the other hand, in person, a really good psychopath seems to have some sort of "chemical" effect on a person, again for lack of a better way to describe it, that may have something to do with pheromones or something. This chemical effect induces a sort of sluggishness of the brain.

Still, even that can be overcome if one is aware and on the alert.

Then, of course, there is this next thing that EQ brings up:

The point is that it does not have to go that far if you recognize the initial sense of discomfort the psychopath causes, and you can recognize it through experience and observation of your own empathic sense in the face of the psychopathic boundary of first contact.

Yes, indeed. After you have experienced it a time or two, after you have "tasted" it, you can begin to "grow" that little "sensor" thing that speaks in a small voice and says "Hmmm... something is NOT right about this guy..." (or gal). And truth is, we have a couple members of QFG who seem to have a very highly developed ability in this regard. It's like a BS meter, only it's a psychopath meter. So generally, if I encounter someone who I am not entirely sure about, I'll ask the group to "check 'em out" and report back. With a concensus of impressions that suggests caution, as I said, little tests can be devised.

And little by little, as this is done, each person who is part of the network is better and better able to "tune" their own psychopath meter, though some people are always going to be better at it than others.

Initially, the time may take to be sure you are dealing with a psychopath may be long enough to do damage because one is not sure and does not trust those initial feelings of unease, which seem to have no rational explanation.

Yes, those initial feelings of unease... and how often we shove them under the rug, convincing ourselves that there is NO rational explanation so we ought to just disregard them! In all the cases we have discussed in QFG, I think that we have concluded everytime that there was a "warning," a sensation of something that was not quite right.

Eventually, however, when we have experienced enough of the psychopaths in our lives, we can learn to recognize those initial impulses for what they are without having to go through the pain of giving the psychopath the benefit of the doubt.

Well, I don't know if I am there yet. I still tend to want to stay open "just in case" I am wrong. I am also quite often so deluged with emails that I may interact with an individual via correspondence for some period of time before I realize that I am being "taken in." But eventually, they DO give themselves away one way or another. One, two or three very small clues. Usually, I don't even know what the clues are, I just know that I am uncomfortable and something is bugging me.

So, I'll line up all the emails, read them for clues, or send them all to QFG for analysis if I don't have the time. Sometimes when I do that, one or other member of QFG will say "Oh, I got an email from so-and-so too! And then they will produce what they received and there is more for comparison. And I can tell you, the QFG is a tough group to put one over on! What one of them doesn't catch, another one will.

Thus, we do not need to enter the psychopath's world, just touch the outer boundary of it, and realize that it does not feel good nor "right", because the world of the psychopath does not feel right at all from a soul perspective.

It is a subtle feeling, and until it can become stronger through practice, self-knowledge protects us from the psychopathic attempts at manipulating our imagination, which begins from the first moment of contact. And it is difficult when we are already under prolonged pschopathic influence. In that sense, empathic recognition is best applied during initial contact, and is more prevention than cure.

Yes, it can become stronger through practice. And yes, knowing our own weaknesses is very good prophylaxis. For example, I am always suspicious of anyone who heaps praises on me for anything. Which reminds me of something funny. I received an email from Terry and Jan, early members of the cass experimental group, the other day. Terry wrote: "Your writing is getting better." It really made me smile because - in his dry way - Terry had given high praise indeed.

But anyway, as I said, I'm suspicious from the git-go of people who write me these long, mushy, epistles loaded with laud and maudlin sentiments. (Sorry for the alliteration, couldn't resist.) They invariably turn out to be either complete Narcissists or worse: psychopaths. What is always amazing to me is that even when I write in ways that ought to suggest to them that I am "on to them," their narcissism prevents them from seeing it. :D