The Guardian Thinks It Knows About Psychopath

Subscribe now

This article has been sent to me a number of times on different platforms to do a post on, so here we are. I haven’t read it, but I do know the quality of the Guardian’s journalistic integrity, so I have no faith whatsoever that this will be reasonable, balanced, fair, or remotely accurate. Just the line under the image that they used:

Psychologist Leanne ten Brinke has spent decades studying toxic personality traits. What are the red flags to look out for among workmates, politicians and potential partners?

Psychopathy has nothing to do with toxic traits, and already she sounds like someone that is chasing that mentality of, “everyone is mean to me, won’t the experts tell me why so I can be comforted in the fact it isn’t my fault, and it’s everyone else around me?” mentality. In other words, exhausting drama, but let’s get into this. The article link is here:

‘Charismatic and extremely confident’: how to recognise – and handle – a psychopath

I have to say, yes, psychopaths are charismatic and confident, but so are loads of other people. That is not a “psychopathy only” kind of deal. They make it sound like, if a person is like this, they are definitely a psychopath. No, they aren’t, and to make claims that insinuate that is ridiculous.

Coming face to face with a probable psychopath was enough to make Dr Leanne ten Brinke rethink her career choices.

All right, straight away it is obvious that she is not going to be remotely qualified to identify psychopathy. Also, the drama… Seriously? Coming face to face with a probable psychopath… Please spare us the histrionics. The person either was, or was not a psychopath. The fact that you said probable, means that they were not, but you either decided that someone, which will certainly be a male, will certainly be a criminal, and possibly not even really exist, is a given. Let’s see, shall we?

Early in her 20s, while studying forensic psychology in Halifax, in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, Ten Brinke was volunteering at a parole office, which would hold weekly group meetings for released sex offenders. “Most of the men showed contrition,” says Ten Brinke. “They really seemed to recognise the damage that they had done.” Except for one. The treatment programme seemed “like a game to him”, she says. One week, in a discussion about the impact their crimes had on victims, this rapist stared at Ten Brinke and, smiling slightly, started to say how much his victim looked like her, “and how I was ‘his type’. Clearly he was trying to scare me, and he did.”

None of them felt one iota of guilt for what they did. Do you not know what mandatory means? They have to be there until you sign their little paper thingy. Part of that is by appearing that they “feel bad”. Liars, the lot of them, and the dude that wanted to scare you, your imaginary psychopath, either didn’t exist and you made him up to tell a, what you believe to be, compelling story, or he’s a sadist who wants to see you squirm. If you knew anything at all about psychopathy or sadism, you would know that sadism requires emotional empathy, something that psychopaths lack entirely. If you knew that, you wouldn’t be saying that this is a probable psychopath.

The fact that you don’t know this goes back to your initial thinking being correct. You should have picked a different career. This one is not suited to you. Also, you’re gullible. If you actually believed those men, you are as dumb as they thought you were. I guarantee that a bunch of the “contrite” sex offenders have been rearrested, probably multiple times, and if they haven’t, it’s likely that they just got better at committing crimes.

Side note, and a bit of a tangent, I suppose. A while ago I listened to one of those videos where a question is asked on Reddit, and people write their replies, then this type of channel will read those replies as a narrative. One of them was a prison guard that had to accompany a prisoner to their therapy sessions, again, mandatory. This therapist bought every single thing the dude said and felt bad for him, because apparently rocks were given to her instead of a functional brain. The guard himself couldn’t tell her anything, he could only accompany the dude. She was five seconds away from writing him a recommendation for early parole, when he just couldn’t wait long enough and raped a dude in a wheel chair, I think ending his life in the process. It’s been a little bit since I heard this.

When I tell you that psychologist was shocked, shocked I say, about how wrong she read the situation, she didn’t know what to do with herself. She actually asked the guard why he didn’t tell her, but he literally couldn’t. He would be fired for doing so. She was so certain that this guy was really remorseful, when in reality he was playing her like a fiddle. Just like this chick. Dumb as the day is long. Yes, that might seem harsh, but the fact she actually thinks that one of these guys feels really really bad about what they did:

Let alone all of them except one, there is no hope for her. All right, going forward with the working knowledge that this woman probably needs assistance pouring cereal because the box is too complex for her, let’s move on.

It put her off a career working with convicted criminals, but she remained fascinated with “dark personalities” – psychopathy, mainly, but also narcissism, machiavellianism (manipulating and exploiting others) and sadism.

Nope, didn’t, because you have already demonstrated to not understand what any of those words mean, but go on…

From politics to business to the media, it wasn’t as if there was a shortage of people to study.

Oh, so you don’t actually do anything but speculate about people you will never meet, all the while violating the ethics code of not marking someone with a diagnosis that you yourself have not examined and have adequate information to state what you are claiming. Yeah, sounds like a totally legit way to be doing a job.

There were selfish, callous, impulsive and manipulative people everywhere, often presenting as gregarious and charming.

Now, you would think, because logic and reason would inform you of this, that if you see it everywhere, that it is a human trait that everyone has to some degree. But no, that’s not what is going to happen here. Instead of the logical reasonable approach, we are going to now claim that means that psychopaths, narcissists, Machiavellianism, and sadists are everywhere. Instead of going, as a species, we should work on this as a whole.

“It started to occur to me that these traits aren’t just confined to an underworld. These traits appear in all aspects of our lives,” she says.

In all people… right? Right? Come on, you can do it. Be reasonable. I don’t have faith in you, but I am willing to be surprised by you…

Now associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia, Canada…

Oh, there it is, the cliff, and we are right off of it. For those of you unaware, that is where Hare teaches, or taught. He might be retired, but with that ego it is likely he is still hauling his ninety-two-year-old butt there. His Wiki says he’s currently active. Gotta make that money and be worshipped as the Psychopath dude, or whatever.

Ten Brinke says these people could be in our families, or living next door. They’re the trolls online. They’re at work, at school, leading our institutions and our countries

Who? All you have done is describe human behavior. All of those things exist, most of them are done by neurotypicals. What is the point you are trying to make? Was a significant part of this interview just scrapped so we are to draw inferences to what is being said without all the words being present? Amusingly, the only thing she listed as a negative action in that paragraph is, “trolls online” which people like her have tried to claim is a psychopathic behavior, but to be a troll you have to care what other people think and feel, which does not go with psychopathy at all. They just want a reason for trolls to be “other”, and unfixable. Then they don’t have to do anything to try and address the problem.

Instead of being specific conditions that one either has or hasn’t, psychopathy and other personality disorders are now thought to exist on a continuum, says Ten Brinke.

Mostly no, with a tiny bit of yes. Psychopathy is a spectrum, I would imagine that the rest are as well to a degree, but the fact is, all of them have diagnostic cut offs, so she is just lying here. She is trying to define things in her terms to claim ownership over them. Maybe she has aspirations to be the next Hare. I know I have mentioned this a lot, but I have seen as he ages, and gets further toward his goodbye to the field, either retirement or death, there is a bevy of people surging to get in his place. It’s making a mess of everything, and all of them present sensationalistic garbage, instead of real research that has value.

It is estimated that 1% of the general population have clinical levels of psychopathy…

Less than one percent, and she should know that.

…(scoring highly on the PCL-R, the psychopathy checklist assessment commonly used for diagnosis).

Did she claim that? Because that is not how it is used. The PCL-R is only used in prisons, and it is not supposed to be what is used for a diagnosis. It might be one part of a diagnosis, but it is certainly not capable of being the only thing. If that is how it is being used, toss out every single diagnosis reached with this methodology. They know better, she knows better, and no, the PCL-R is never used outside prisons and forensic hospitals. However, those are not the only places psychopathy is diagnosed.

Other studies have suggested that up to 18% have “elevated” levels – what we may call “dark territory”, as Ten Brinke puts it in her new book, Poisonous People: How to Resist Them and Improve Your Life.

I am not addressing the ludicrous idea of “dark territory. That is some made up BS for her book and yes, she is trying to get relevance in the space. This is kind of sad. Clearly she can’t stand on her merits so she is just making crap up and hiding behind her alphabet soup after her name. People like this should lose their credentials and be censored for doing harm to the field they are supposed to be improving.

Within the prison population, the instance of clinical psychopathy is about 20%.

Again, this is a lie. The actual number is just under thirteen percent, but that’s not dramatic enough, is it?

However, these dark personalities – who are potentially the most dangerous and likely to reoffend – are particularly good at convincing parole boards to release them, probably because they can be so persuasive.

People with antisocial personality disorder are those most likely to reoffend, not psychopaths, but of course she is going to blend them together, because she has nothing to say without that.

Although the vast majority of people do not have clinical levels of psychopathy, people with elevated dark traits cause an outsize harm to society, whether that’s in the criminal or political arena, or in the corporations they run. “

Oh my lord, I just scrolled. Do you have any idea how long this article is? It’s freaking long. There is nothing being said here that is factual, and no, it isn’t people with psychopathic traits harming the world. It is people that are just normative humans. Seriously. What is with this neurotypical need to not be the bad guy. It’s pathological at this point. “It’s not us, it’s THEM!!!!” As they wildly point to anything that they can determine as “other”. It’s really telling.

The research suggests that nature and nurture both play a role,” Ten Brinke says. “That’s promising in the sense that we know that affecting the environment can change people’s outcomes.” This is particularly true for children with “callous unemotional” traits and persistent aggressive behaviour. This can be measured, says Ten Brinke, “as early as two or three years old, and getting these kids into treatment as early as possible is important because there we can see changes to traits over time”.

No, it cannot be. Stop trying to label children. It is disgusting behavior. The fact that this woman knows that the brain is not developed at that age and that children are just mean and selfish by nature, but is still trying to sell this nonsense is very typical of these sorts. If a child is aggressive, sure, something might be up with them, but that is not indicative of psychopathy. Nothing about psychopathy denotes aggression. Emotional dysregulation goes along with aggression, and that might be what’s going on, but that has nothing to do with psychopathy. These so-called doctors are so desperate for their moment in the sun that they use the problems that families have with kids that have problems as the backs to step on to get up just a little higher in their careers.

With adults, treatment can only really change behaviour, not personality.

Even if you could identify psychopathy in children, you wouldn’t be able to change their personalities then, either. The idea that you are going to groom children to suit your little box is something that just isn’t going to happen.

“The best research that we have on treatment for adults is coming out of criminal justice settings – these are people who have shown very high clinical levels of these traits, and have committed some crime, often violent in nature.

Hate to break it to you lady, but it takes about three seconds to pull apart your so-called “best research”. Y’all are doing a real sh*t job with it. It’s not just pretty bad, it’s deplorably bad. Almost none of the studies done in prisons are worth the paper they get printed on, or the server space that they occupy. I would say to fix it, but it seems intentional to do studies that have no value. So no, you have no good research coming out of prisons, therefore any conclusions you have drawn on that information is trash. I suspect you know that, but who is going to fact check your methodology. People see the degree that you have and just assume you know what you’re talking about.

Too bad, you don’t. Or worse, you do, but you say what you have to say to keep that book money coming in.

The goal of those treatment programmes is usually to reduce the likelihood of recidivism, and especially violent recidivism, and the research shows that it can work. Individuals, even with high levels of psychopathy, who stay in treatment show lower levels of reoffence over time.”

If you have a high level psychopath in prison for a violent crime, what Kevin Dutton calls an A-Lister, or an Above the Snowline psychopath, keep them there. I mean that. Don’t let them out. They aren’t changing for you, and letting them out pretty much guarantees that they will go back to whatever they were doing before. You let them out, and I will call you dumb. Leave them in there. Forever.

Ten Brinke watched a documentary on psychopathy one day at school and was hooked.

*Groan* We do not want or need your psychopathy fangirling. Also, what documentary did you see, because I am guessing it is another example of people not knowing a damn thing about it, and selling you on a notion that doesn’t exist.

“I was just so intrigued by someone who had such a different experience of the world than I do.” She was fascinated by criminals. Her doctoral thesis was on whether it was possible, by watching the public appeals of parents whose children had gone missing, to detect those who had, in reality, killed them. By the end of her PhD, however, Ten Brinke was getting tired of murder. She went on to study business, “where my interest really broadened, to study dark personality traits across different contexts”.

What… kind of mess was that paragraph. Nothing had anything to do with anything else. You watched a documentary on psychopathy and somehow that morphs into missing kids, murder, criminals, and then “dark personality traits”. You sound like one of those people that just lump a bunch of unrelated things into a pot and think that you’re the greatest chef ever, but in reality the food is inedible and your neighbors are gagging from the smell.

There is, she says, a small but reasonable chance that your boss is a psychopath, given that people with dark personality traits are over-represented in senior management.

There is also a chance that your boss is a xenomorph, so there’s that…

“We certainly know that dark personalities are really interested in power and status,” says Ten Brinke.

Psychopaths literally aren’t though. Power and status are tools, sure, but they do nothing for our ego. It isn’t a pursuit unless there is a point, and the point cannot merely be to have them. That’s too easy. It’s more difficult to keep people from noticing us and wanting to be around us than it is to garner such things, and unless they lead to somewhere specific, there is nothing there for us.

“They also tend to come across as quite charismatic and extremely confident, and we tend to confuse confidence for competence. Also, they’re probably just putting themselves forward for these positions more than the average person.”

If a psychopath wants to advance somewhere, it’s assured that we will, easily at that. If the goal is to get to a specific place, sure, a psychopath will go for the promotion, or whatever. Psychopathy comes with ruthlessness, which for some reason neurotypicals tend to see as a negative trait. We also are very low in agreeableness. Frankly, I would almost say that we lack it all together, but recognize that the way to get what we want will entail a good amount of appearing to be otherwise. However, if there is something that is going to get us where we want to go, we aren’t going to be nice about getting there. Why would we?

This article is too long for one entry, so we will pick it up next week. In the next post we will finish this travesty of an article. I do not know why this was ever published, and I suspect this is just a puff piece to get this woman’s book more views. Maybe the people that own the Guardian also own that publishing company that put it out. I do not know why else it could be.