I have to admit that sometimes I can be pretty dense, although, in my defense, even highly qualified experts who should know better sometimes miss the point. It was only last year did something come clear to me because of an experience I had with a young man who was not exactly who he seemed to be. As a result, it would seem time to clarify the distinctions between the pure narcissist, psychopath and sociopath.
My introduction to the concept of narcissists came from William D. Meyer over at the main website for the Painful Truth:
http://hwarmstrong.com/narcissistic.htm
It was very helpful to me, personally. I wondered about some people I knew personally, and this helped me immeasurally in my personal and professional life. It suddenly made sense to me when I dealt with people who were the center of their own universe and could in no way relate to others in a personal way or even acknowledge other people’s worth except for what they did personally for the narcissist himself or herself. I also had unfortunate interactions with Dr. Sam Vaknid and bought his book. I can agree with one thing he said in his book, Malignant Self Love — Narcissism Revisited: “My disorder is here to stay, the prognosis is poor and alarming”. The Narcissist has no empathy for others. The Narcissist will never change. Everyone else who comes into the life of the Narcissist will probably end up to be collateral damage.
So I thought Narcissists were really bad. But there are worse things in this world. I was in the locker room at Balley’s Pac West after a workout when a retired doctor who also worked out there told me about Dr. Robert Hare and his book: Without Conscience — The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us. “It’s a fun read,” the retired doctor said. After my experiences with them, and especially a Church of God psychopath leader [well documented by a psychiatrist], I conclude that the read might be fun, but actual experience with them, not so much. I’ve never been so miserable in my life as when I’ve been forced to deal with psychopaths. Dr. Hare wrote another, more useful and useable book with a colleague: Snakes in Suits — When Psychopaths Go to Work. Snakes in Suits unveils the basic patterns of the Psychopath: Evaluation, manipulation, abandonment. They are the risk-taking game players. Ironically, a story in the book tells of how a psychopath ripped off a church. It appears to me — and this is just my thinking — that the highest concentration of psychopaths are in Jails / Prisons, Corporations, Government and Churches. Otherwise, they are 2% or so of the general populace. However, statistics are hardly comforting if you end up being on their radar. You are going to be toast. They have the talent to con just about everybody and rip them off royally.
Along the way, people have asked me whether Herbert Armstrong was a psychopath. I have told them universally that I did not know. For one thing, anyone with a high vocabulary is not easy to spot as a psychopath, and, although, as with everything with Herbert Armstrong exaggerated to be bigger than life, and although perhaps his vocabulary was not as high as he’d like to have believed, it still would certainly cloud the issue.
Two years ago I encountered a young man who seemed sincere and quite religiously pious. He said and seemed to do all the right things. He had quite a family history which many would find somewhat disturbing, but he seemed OK. My radar was on for Narcissists and Psychopaths, but I was missing the final piece. I could not for the life of me figure this guy out. I wondered what was going on. He seemed to familiar to me, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
After quite a bit of research, I discovered the rather unexpected answer: He was a sociopath. Before you begin jumping to any conclusions, let me say that Dr. Robert Hare says that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) is wrong. It confuses the distinction between sociopaths and psychopaths. A little more research revealed the difference: While psychopaths are narcissistic, have no conscience and play games with people, the sociopath is narcissistic, has a situational conscience and is an opportunist.
What is a situational conscience?
A situational conscience is a conscience which is activated within a sociopath for a particular venue. That is to say that a sociopath may very well have no problem at all murdering, lying and theft with the general public, but for his particular social association, he may hold it anathema to do so with a particular segment of his social group. For example, the sociopath I knew hates all other men and he would have no problem hurting them — even killing them, but he would NEVER even think of hurting or doing anything bad to the women of his own family.
A perfect example of sociopaths is represented by the Mafia: They may murder, steal, lie, run illegal gambling and prostitution rings, cheat and sell drugs. Nevertheless, Mafia members would never do that to other Mafia members. It would probably mean death. Their sociopathic behavior is compartmentalized to the world outside of their own social group. And, of course, the one who holds the whole thing together is the Godfather.
If you view Herbert Armstrong as the Spiritual Mafia Godfather, it explains a lot. In the Radio Church of God and later in the Worldwide Church of God, his behavior was not that far off the mark as a sociopath acting as a Godfather. He generally took care of his family. He protected his son, even as GTA committed reprehensible acts. He took care of his wife and daughters, albeit there seems to be some aberrations in that regard. He took care of his closest lieutenants, as long as they did what he wanted them to do. He viewed the rest of us as the sort of plebians which carried out the operations and supported the main Family. At this point, Tkatch’s “We are Family” just doesn’t seem that appealing. It would be natural for him to fall prey to a sociopath who made outrageous claims of being connected to the Mafia.
The Worldwide Church of God was filled with outrageous anomalies. Men who became ministers married coeds who had been date raped by GTA. Some of them made it all the way to be Evangelists — all the while knowing the truth. It was natural that Roderick Meredith would be seen by Herbert Armstrong as his loyal “enforcer” — hard, harsh, cruel, but loyal to the Godfather himself. People ended up engaging in and subject to all sorts of conduct that was illegal, immoral and unethical. Herbert Armstrong himself said it was OK to lie to the general populace in order to bring them to “the truth” whatever that was. Personal opinions of the Godfather became doctrine, just as does in the Mafia. He had all the control and power. No one could oppose him.
Herbert Armstrong could be very nice to those he though were “important” and could be of use to him. I think, though, as aggressive and manic as he was, Herbert Armstrong was an opportunist. He didn’t aggressively play games and play people, but he wasn’t above engaging in opportunities when they came his way. For example, he honored and held up his eight Japanese “Sons” and even threatened to leave us all in favor of them. Stanley Rader was an opportunity he could not pass up, particularly because Rader straightened out the business end of things. But to make him an Evangelist after baptizing him in a bathtub? Well, you know, it’s important that Godfather makes it clear what kind of treatment of honor and respect someone gets in doing his work and providing him service. After all, the end justifies the means, just as it does in the Mafia. As long as the Godfather and his work was promoted, all else could be forgiven.
So now my training is complete and I have the trinity of narcissim well defined and nailed down: Good enough for practical use in daily life. My advice to you is the same as I take myself: As much as lies within us, avoid Narcissists, Psychopaths AND Sociopaths. Our lives are better off for it. Unfortunatly, I work for them, so there isn’t that much escape, but at least I understand their deviant nuttiness.
I hope that my experiences will be of practical benefit for you.
Keep your radar on.
Mr. Becker, I’m in full agreement with you on this. HWA did give away a lot of insights on himself in his autobiography. He did say he was driven to be “better”. He admitted to his own narcissism. I think he was probably sincere in what he came to believe was true. Those are not only the best deceivers, but the most capable of doing harm in the name of good. It is as Hoffer writes in “The True Believer”, the very act of organizing multiplies evil and allows “estrangement from self” that further enables the believer to hurt, humiliate, and kill others.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I mentioned before that Sharon, my fiancee, was married to a sociopath. He raped her little girl by her first marriage, repeatedly, and then threatened to kill Sharon if the girl ever told.
When he was found out, and Sharon threw his criminal ass out of the house, he bragged about how he had fooled her all those years. No conscience. When she persisted in convicting him, his own family attacked her and declared that he raped her daughter because Sharon was unwiling to provide him love. He said that Sharon was cold to him and her daughter, and that the daughter asked for ‘special love” to compensate for Sharon’s coldness. I’ve known Sharon for 20 years, as well as her younger brother. You couldn’t ask for two kinder, more decent loving human beings.
When Sharon refused to be intimidated, the rapist hanged himself. The DA said it saved a lot of paperwork. The daughter makes periodic visits to his grave, to piss on it. I like her.
The fascinating thing is that Sharon consulted with therapists and psychiatrists, who told her to get away from me, because I was most likely a sociopath myself. That brought a smile to my face. I asked Sharon if I could kick down their door and ask them what the fuck they were thinking, but she said that she would leave me if i did. Damn!
Whenever we aregue, she does remind me that behavioral experts have said I’m a sociopath, which really makes me horny, and we make up.
That’s basically why I like logic. I probably am a sociopath.
Narcissism, however, may come from what Dawkins calls the genetic replicative algorithm. We need to replicate at our most basic level, and replication comes by control. The more we control our environment, the greater our chances of exact replication, which serves the genes beautifully.
It may also be the reason why geomwetry makes so much sense. Geometry is the linear extension of aconcept into infinity. One thing leads to another, and to another…
Narcissism is the linear extension of oneself into the environment, which is why proselytizing religion works so well when humans are adapting to new environments. They greater the number who look, act, and think alike, the greater the genes’ chances of exact replication for future generations.
So, we aren’t entirely to blame for our natures, but it does seem we’re conceived in “sin”.
Ralph,
Look at all the American families and schools.
Little Johnny can never do wrong. He gets praise when he does right and more praise when he fucks up. When he gets piss poor grades the answer is that he tried. Give him a ten dollar bill and re-enforce his negative behavior. Further yet, praise him all the time. Make him feel good about himself. When he loses a baseball game blame the referee.
Spoil him with gifts. Tell him he is special. Let all the family lie to the kid until the day arrives when he believes all this crap.
When that day arrives pat yourself on the back knowing that you created your first little narcissist. Then sit back and learn to take orders from the little bastard!
Society, and I am talking liberals here, create these people (if you could call them human) using their feel good, never a failure, always try to make things fair in life approach. And the price society pays? Look around you.
Newspaper articles about sports with no losers in a game. A district attorney who prosecutes children for sending nude pictures of themselves (calling it child porn) and others back and forth over their phones, labeling them forever as “sexual predators or deviates.” Oh he soon got fired, but that is not the point. He reeked havoc in a small town here in Oregon. Those parents who spent a fortune protecting their children from this adult, would like to hunt him down and “punish” him. I hope they do find him some day soon.
In the insane world of these enablers (or should I call them creators,) everyone wins. No grading system in the schools, everybody passes just for trying. This crap truly is everywhere.
So Ralph, I agree with what you wrote above, but there is more. We create them and they multiply. How do I know? Again, just look around.
http://totalsurfer.bizland.com/topics_218.html
The problem is that the Pavlovian bell ringing system of schools(see articles of John Taylor Gatto) created a host of children and later teen-agers, especially teen-agers, who despised the operant conditioning system of de-personalization, of changing class every hour on the hour, seeing new faces and learning to become de-personalized yourself.
I rebelled against that garbage in high school. I used to skip classes and walk the school halls with papers in my hand, looking like I was delivering an important message for the principle.
Other times, I would catch the bus to school, then walk to the nearby town and shoot pool until time for school to let out, and walk back to catch the bus home.
I only did that because my neighbor, the “girl next door” was incredibly beautiful, and she like me. I sat with her to school and from school, and that was the end of school for me.
If I didn’t feel like doing anything, I would sit zombie-like in class and act as if the teacher had said nothing. If she spoke to me, I looked straight ahead and ignored her. Strangely, others started doing this.
If I felt frisky, I would hose the halls with the fire extinguisher or some other attention getting thing.
If I was called to the principal’s officre, I would sit and pretend that he wasn;t in the room. He must have been narcissist. Told me to bring my parents with me, or don’t come back. I never went back. I was 15, and that was the happiest time of my life.
I went to the nearby community college, took some tests, and got my high school equivalency in about 4 hours. Went to college and made the Dean’s List for two years.
Now, they have to make Johnny feel like a friggin’ king, or he’ll staret pipe bombing and shooting people. Wish that was going on when i was a student.
With sociopaths I’d just as soon go to Las Vegas and toss dice: It’s a crap shoot. I might be OK if the sociopath’s conditional conscience included people like me. The chances are against it. Some people will be “safe” with a sociopath, most will not.
In all my research, I have never found an instance where a psychopath committed suicide: They are too focused on the “win”.
Narcissism is a pure choice, but one reinforced, generally speaking during the teen years. It often manifests itself as a pursuit of pleasing a parent which cannot be pleased for one reason or another. In the case of Herbert Armstrong, he was likely [speculation alert!] frustrated with his father. His father probably had structural visualization, given that he apparently had some invention related to furnaces and seemed to have a furnace factory. He was, for his time, a skilled technologist. Herbert Armstrong was nothing of the kind. He didn’t understand science, technology or have structural talent. You might say he was the ultimate in two dimensional thinking. This may have set a dynamic where neither understood one another. Herbert Armstrong may then have chosen to not just be the center of attention, but to be better than everyone else. He often was proud to make “people eat their words” and “win”, proving he was right.
Again, narcissism is a choice. It is not preset by nature.
It is slightly different with psychopaths. There are three specific things which must be true during their developmental stage. Still, it’s mostly a choice — and a measurable one, if we are to believe Dr. Robert Hare’s study of psychopath brain waves.
Note that narcissists, psychopaths and sociopaths have a mental disorder. It is not a mental illness. There is nothing really physiological about it, like, say, schizophrenia or bipolar disease. The only disease they have are spiritual and social ones.
I’m glad we’re getting some insight into these conditions, but they are hard to pin down and quantitize. Definitely, Herbert had problems, but he wan’t “crazy,” as such. He was much too crafty to be crazy.
I, for one, do not believe he was sincere His reported statement to his daughter: “Those dummies will believe anything I tell them,” shows it was all a pretend game with him. He was out to become rich and powerful and to be looked up to by others. Anyone who threatened to get in the way had to be disposed of ruthlessly, and they were. History is full of people like him.
While narcissism may be a choice to an intense degree, perhaps such as HWA, it is within the genetic structure, as narcissism supports the replication of the genes via the genetic replicative algorithm.
This begins the study of sociobiology, in which social systems form, but tend toward genetic kinship or imagined genetic kinship, as in nation-states or religions. That is the implications of Hoffer’s statement when he pointed out that all mass movements, whatever their content, are based on one particular drive that dominates all of them. Whle Hoffer never knew what the drive was, Dawkins seems to have nailed it with “the selfish gene”.
That such leaders have such incredible success shows we have a proclivity toward that to a great degree. Murray Rothbard, leader of the “Von Mises” group of economic philosophers, wrote of just the same adoration of Ayn Rand, of “dummies who believed everything she said”. The movie, “Passion of Ayn Rand(or somethig like that)” was based on the book by Nathaniel branden’s wife, who also told of the domination and forcing of every mind into a logical mold prescribed by Ayn Rand.
Both HWA and Ayn Rand were successful because their ideas were not only based on a linear sequence of thoughts that tended toward intellectualism, but they drew us out of the usual emotional matrix of confusing interfamily relations. In that sense they were merely fulfilling the power of what Marshall McLuhan wrote of in his study of alphabetic text. Here is McLuhan’s explanation, which fits nicely into the paradigms described by both Dawkins and Hoffer:
“Socially, the typographic extensions of man brought in nationalism industrialism, mass markets(and mass religions), and universal literacy and education(which was early on developed by the Jews who developed compulsory education for all as competition to Alexander’s “gymnasiums” for the elite). For print presented an image of repeatable precision, that inspired totally new forms of extending social energies in the Renaissance, as today in Japan or Russia, by breaking the individual out of the traditional group while providing a model of how to add individual to individual in massive agglomeration of power”.
This form of print technology heightened and combined with the exact replication needed for the genetic replicative algorithm. Iyt just “felt right” to be a part of something greater and more wonderful than ourselves.
When the genes don’t have to worry about the individualism of personal adaptation, they function more effectively. The problem is, we lose an embeddedness in a continuous group, which often results in cults as counter measures to the stress of change. If we follow the leader, it reduces the necessity of “overchoice”, which also serves the genes.
The collectivist religious urge, therefore, is a purely biological urge, but connecting it to “God” gives sanction to bullying, torture, and murder in the name of God. Those who kill you will think they do God a service.
In that sense, most of us are not far away from being an HWA.
I think an example of a psychopath would be Adolf Hitler. A sociopath is not the same thing even if they used to be lumped in with psychopaths. A sociopath lacks empathy and sympathy – but, they are just as smart as anyone else, therefore they learn to pretend empathy and sympathy.
Serial killers are mostly sociopaths indulging in their lack of sympathy and empathy. The thing is, they have learned to pretend so well that people who know them are surprised when they get caught. “oh, he was such a nice, friendly guy and a real good neighbor” is what most folks say after the sociopathic killer/torturer is caught.
I think HWA is a good example of a sociopath. He definitely had no feelings of empathy and sympathy for anyone, not even his own wife, using her illness to raise more money from folks he knew did have sympathy, even as she lay dying. If he committed incest, it was because he was thinking only of himself and didn’t care about what that might do to his daughter’s life. That would be typical behavior for a sociopath.
He didn’t care if his doctrines caused hardships and even death for others just so long as he lived high on the hog – sociopathic behavior.
There are people who simply don’t give a damn but they’re honest about it. A sociopath pretends that he does “give a damn” about the welfare of others when he really couldn’t care less. Your good, friendly and helpful neighbor may be being a good, friendly and helpful neighbor to cover up what he really is. The thing is, you can’t tell the difference.
I remember a story, might have been one of Paul Harvey’s, about a man who was being chased by the police. He ran back to his apartment which he rented from a lady. He was planning to shoot himself, and he had to find his gun. His landlord caught him with the gun aimed at his temple, and told him to surrender, that life was too precious to waste. There would always be a tomorrow.
The man put the gun down and turned himself in. As you might already know, that man was Adolf Hitler. Random acts of kindness get you every time.
Again, these definitions are hard to keep up with, but I have to agree with exdelph that Herb was more a sociopath than anything else. He really didn’t care about Loma or anyone else. Her body was hardly cold before he was off pretending to be an ambassador for world peace without portfolio.
Loma was too victorian in her sexual approach to please Herb. I heard him say in a minister’s meeting that she couldn’t stand for her breasts to be touched. I have to sympathize with him a bit for being frustrated over that and probably a whole lot more he didn’t mention. How he compensated for his frustrations was totally sociopathic.
The ruthless way he dealt with anyone who posed a real or imaginary threat was also sociopathic.
Sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists. They can all introduce problems into our lives, whether they exist as our family members, colleagues at work, or amongst our friends or aquaintances. One of the most dangerous positions which they can occupy is that of, for lack of better terminology, “guru”. We need to remember, and to educate others as to what is a personality cult. While it was perfectly appropriate for the Son of God to make His teachings all about Himself and His mission, some presumptuous humans usurp this privilege for themselves as they start their own little groups. If you listen to them, they use the term “I” in a nauseating repetitiveness, and want to impress us with their life experiences, and in some cases, some alleged special powers which they claim to possess. Generally, their teachings tend to aggrandize themselves, often at the expense of others. There are no checks and balances, there is no due process, no source for a second opinion, as it all starts and ends with the guru him or herself. What arrogance!
We’ve seen how some gurus are so effective in utilizing leverage. The Armstrongs used the sabbath as leverage, elliminating most of the second opinions we could all have sought. I can’t tell you, even today, how many times I’ve quoted a particularly salient morsel of understanding from a mainstream Christian teacher, and someone has come back with a response, like, “Why would you trust anything that individual has to say? He doesn’t know anything about the sabbath or holydays, so how could God be working through him?”
BB
Why would it be perfectly appropriate for “the son of God” to teach about himself personally and his mission? How would you, or I, or anyone know if he was the son of God?
The only answer you could provide for that would be “because I believe it from what I read”. But if other people read the Koran, or still others read the Tibetan Book of The Dead, they would also provide arguments for what they believe, and they would produce a “cult of personality”. There’s an estimated 38,000 versions of those who believe the bible.
Remember that song(Cult of Personality)? Been awhile, but that one stanza, “I give you fortune, I give you fame, I give you power in your God’s name. I am the person you need to be. I am the cult of personality”.
This kind of stuff we call christianity is custom made for sociopaths, psychpaths, and murderers. Sharon’s rapist husband regularly took her daughter to church, went to the alter, cried, wept, and asked God to help his family.
Then he went home and raped a little girl.
How do you know which is the true “man of God”? You don’t. As the old saying goes, I trust all of them as far as I can fling an elephant by the tail. If their lips are moving, they’re lying. They can’t do otherwise. I’m talking about ministers, not sociopaths and psychopaths.
Regarding the personal message of Jesus as son of God, you have one of two choices. Either he told the truth in Matthew 24:23, that his life set us free from all religious systems claiming to represent Christ, or in establishing a message for us to find by works, he set the stage for the cults of personality.
Basically, my thoughts exactly, Ralph. It’s hard for me to contemplate how anyone who has been through the WCG experience and is a normally intelligent and mature adult can go back to that virgin birth, son of god nonsense and say he believes it. I have to think BB really does, but it strains my credulity to the max.
In reading through the links given by Mr. Becker, and statements from James on bankruptcy court, I think it might be worthwhile to show two different philosphies, both of which claim to be based on the authority of God.
If you walk into court as the one on trial, you are generally asked to speak under oath or affirmation. The court can’t force you to do this, but they will requwest that you do. If you are the accused, you don;t have to swear or affirm, and the general plea entered is “Not guilty”.
The instant you do swear or affirm, it is recognized by the court that you have waived your rights. Whatever you say, as the Miranda warning says “can and will be held against you in a court of law”.
This is a telling statement. It “can and will” be held against you. Not if you are simply guilty, but in either case, once you waive your rights, all statements WILL be held against you.
Since all 50 states uses this in order to invoke the authority of God(because all 50 states recognize the sovereignty of God), you have given ytoursel over to CIVIL AUTHORITY. This is so because common law has no recognition of the authority of civil law. Bet they never told you that, did they? Yet that is exactly what Blackstone writes. Civil law is not recognized as an authority over common law.
So what if you should choose to invoke God’s authority in a perfectly legitimate way that served your interests instead of the state? You can, and it’s doubtful the state can argue otherwise.
The “Lord’s Prayer”: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done”. This invokes God’s authority satisfactorily for the court, but you have sworn to nothing.
Next useful line? “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”
Why, do you suppose, the courts would not use the Lord’s prayer to invoke God’s authority? The answer should be obvious. But what is “due process of law” from the biblical perspective?
“Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled”.
What law? Common law, not civil law. Your case cannot be dismissed until every possible argument is heard from a xcommon law perspective, and since the state recognizes the sovereignty of God, you have a lot of laws to exploit, not to mention conveing court under the preinciple of debt and trespass forgiveness.
That, of course, is also consistent with common law, since you are allowed to anything you wish so long as no one else is harmed.
In Jesus’ teaching, are you subject to written law?
“Except your righteousness shall exceed te righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”.
Who were the scribes and Phartisees? The lawyers and legal experts of the written law. You actually CAN argue from a “higher law”.
No person can be forced to violate their conscience uinder common law. The concept of “privileges and immunities” are written into the Beattitudes, which are foundations of christian faith.
BTW, in regard to Mr. Becker’s comments on corporations, I had always wondered how corporations got status as “legal persons” with due process rights, so I started looking through Blackstone.
An authority equal to Blackstone, who gave the name “due process” to common law, was English Chief Justice Edward Coke, highly regarded by the colonists.
Coke(pronounced Cook) wrote that the name of incorporation is a name of baptism. A private founder gives the name acting as godfather, and the king baptizes it with that name.
All forms of corporations came from civil law, which was Roman law, and rejected by common law. Yet corporations were adopted by the common law to include churches, colleges(or universities, a word also borrowed from Roman law). While common law was recognized as the unwritten traditons and customs of the people of England, the written civil law of Rome had to be somehow converted into common law. The corporation found its way by being “born again”.
The common law then considered a corporation as a single person, having one will, to be treated as a person under common law. This was accepted practice under common law, so the Supremes in the US simply allowed it to be so, without actually writing it into the constitution.
It seems to me, however, that corporations would be cancelled from such inclusion due to separation of church and state.
HWA was an enigma. I would believe that he was strictly after money but he and his minions spent a lot of time developing a malformed theology. And they seemed to know the details of this theology.
Jim Jones, for instance, did not develop, to my knowledge, a theology. He rode on the coattails of existing evangelicalism. HWA and his minions could have done the same thing.
I think it is possible that HWA started out viewing religion as a business enterprise (a common viewpoint in North American evangelicalism) and actually became convinced that he was right and really was an apostle.
— Neo