Thursday, March 10, 2011
Contradict yourself - just don't be a Psychopath!
The photo to left shows Dr Joseph M Carver, PhD, the author of the article I am bringing up in today's entry.
The Stockholm Syndrome - Are we really that bad?
I came upon a text apparently meant to be about The Stockholm Syndrome and the problematic love involved on this victims' part. It is written for the victims, not for the abusers, but I think both sides can have benefit from looking into the aspects at work in these situations. However, it is not - as one might think by seeing the title - about hijackers or terrorists.
The author, Dr Joseph M. Carver, of the article 'Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser (Part 1)', writes:
Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a “soft side”. During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past — how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a “victim”. Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with “I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he’s troubled. He had a rough childhood!” Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it’s almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food — now known as the “Twinkie Defense”. While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While “sad stories” are always included in their apologies — after the abusive/controlling event — their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the “sad stories”, they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I’m beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"
Now the 'Small Kindness' is about giving your victim little signs of consideration at the right times.
However, I find some problems with his description of the 'Soft Side' issue.
Just something like mentioning that abusers will often tell the victim about how they've been wronged, abused, etc., various hardships like poor and abusive upbringings, he ends the whole passage by saying:
I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I’m beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me".
Oh is that right? Why then you've just contradicted the whole chapter which is about how this is exactly what abusers do: Tell their victims they're disordered because their parents - their mom, their caretaker, - beat them up or otherwise mistreated them and basically were very hateful in their ways towards the abuser.
So which is it?
What hits me about something like this glitch is that for as long as it is someone professional, someone who has never been linked to 'bad' conduct or having been diagnosed a psychopath or antisocial themselves, they can get away with almost anything, just as long as some of it fits what people already have found to be true in most cases.
And 'most cases' may be key here, since if you ARE a psychopath (in their understanding), there's no way you can not have acted like this clinical psychologist describes. You must've acted thus, or your victim/s would not have developed what they define as 'Stockholm Syndrome', and that is because NO ONE can possible love a psychopath! No, not REALLY love, it MUST be manipulation.
As a representative of the side that carries the label Psychopath I can't help but finding this problematic. It tends towards superstition when you can't imagine a psychopath really being loved and not because of abusive manipulation, whereas on the other side a professional who writes about your manipulative methods can't be wrong, even when he contradicts himself!
And while we're at it, where is the respect for the victims in all these writings that portrays them as unthinking marionette dolls that any psychopathic person who happens to come by can manipulate into doing and feeling the exact opposite things of what is viewed moral, sane, logical, good, etc.?
As I see it there's a lot of disdain and hidden contempt for these 'normal' people who so willingly become our victims.It is not only in the Stockholm Syndrome I see this ... you can say that in this case it is understandable that a victim will try to please their abuser, since their lives may be at stake.
But once we draw a connection between airplane hijackers and common psychopaths it really begins to look suspicious.
And in this piece of text - contradictions aside - the line-drawing is unmistakable. If anyone thinks otherwise, all you need to do is pay his website a visit. It is ABOUT psychopathic abusers.
...Or not as the case may be!