Debunking Time!

Another lovely article about "female psychopaths"...

female psychopath

Can we just take a moment and collectively laugh at the fact that the prompt “female psychopath” causes the Substack AI to generate a female zombie? I mean… that’s just precious, don’t you think? Yeah… me too…

Anyway, the article about BPD and its overlap with psychopathy is a long one, and I am still working on it, so we are going to give ourselves a headache with this lovely contribution:

More women are psychopaths than previously thought, expert claims - these are the 7 key signs to look out for

This one is just… well… silly. The so-called “expert” in this one has never met a female psychopath in his life, and that is pretty obvious based on what he claims what “female psychopathy” is. Let’s get into this:

From Patrick Bateman to Tom Ripley, on-screen psychopaths are usually male, not to mention violent criminals. 

Nope. Neither of those characters are psychopathic. We are not off to a good start.

This may fuel the assumption that the vast majority of psychopaths are men – but an academic now claims this may be misguided. 

Ooo goody, and “academic”. Who might this “academic” be?

Dr Clive Boddy, an expert at Anglia Ruskin University, says female psychopaths are 'more common than we think' because studies have long failed to identify them. 

I looked him up. Guess what his “doctorate” is in? “Doctor of Business Administration, Curtin University. 2009” Now, it says that he got a “PhD, Middlesex University, 2016”, but they are very careful to not mention in what. He is not credentialed in psychology or neurology. In other words, he is making sh*t up by calling himself an “expert”. Fun, right? The fact that this article calls him an “expert” is amusing to me. Let’s see what he thinks female psychopaths are like, and from now on, I will be addressing him as, “you”.

Signs of psychopathy in women are different to men – and often come in the form of sexually seductive and manipulative behaviour, Dr Boddy told MailOnline.

Based on what? And, “because I say so”, is not evidence of this claim. There had better be something that you’re drawing this information from other than studies that are done on women in the prison system that have every diagnosis under the sun, but also somehow are psychopathic.

Other key signs include spreading lies or rumours and 'expressing violence verbally', in the form of shouting or screaming. 

Oh good lord, you’re one of those, aren’t you? Someone that has no idea what women are like and think that categorizing immature behavior as “psychopathic” or some mental health issue. None of that has anything to do with psychopathy. Rumor spreading and spreading lies is standard female behavior. And I mean, VERY standard. Stop pathologizing normative behavior. This is just how immature women operate. You could cite hardwiring competition for mates, you could say lack of brain development, but either way, normal.

“Expressing violence verbally” is not something that a psychopath is going to bother with. Shouting and screaming are highly emotional actions, and psychopathic women are not different from men in our emotional experience. Thinking that we are means that you do not have an actual working understanding of psychopathy, but rather have a nebulous definition that you shift and shape to mold whatever it is you are trying to make it mean.

If this is how we addressed neurological differences between men and women, where we can literally change the definition and create totally different traits because, reasons… am I right? No, no you are not. Not at all, and if that is how you are doing things, just stop.

On-screen female psychopaths do exist, and include Alex Forrest (played by Glenn Close) in Fatal Attraction and Villanelle (Jodie Comer) from BBC series Killing Eve.

Nope to both. Femme fatales are not psychopaths, and the chick from Killing Eve is definitely not a psychopath. That is a pedestrian and ridiculous position to take. You should be embarrassed if this is your idea of what female psychopathy looks like.

According to Dr Boddy, female psychopaths use deceit and sexually seductive behaviour to gain social and financial advantage more than male psychopaths do. 

Again, based on what? Because I am a female psychopath, and this is not remotely interesting to me to do at all. Could I have? Sure. I have had people who would have loved to keep me as a kept woman for my entire life, but that holds no interest to me. However, this doesn’t make me any different than most attractive women. This isn’t a psychopath thing, it’s a beautiful woman thing. I am also still waiting to see where this information and these conclusions are coming from. Present evidence. When you don’t, I don’t think you have any. You don’t… do you… I bet you don’t.

'Psychopaths are driven by a need to have power over and control other people via whatever resources they have available to them,' he told MailOnline.

Again, nope. This has nothing to do with psychopathy. Psychopaths do not care about power or control. The people that desire these things care about status, what people think of them, and their influence in other peoples’ lives. Psychopathy comes with a distinctive lack of all of these things. You don’t seem to know the difference between psychopathy and narcissism… that’s a problem… “expert”.

'For male psychopaths this may veer towards physical domination through violence, bullying and threats. 

Nope. Psychopaths use charm. In fact, when you look through the list of psychopathic traits, regardless of who puts it together, it will include “charm”, but it doesn’t include “threats” or “physical domination”. I wonder why that is. Oh, because it isn’t true. I wonder what you are getting out of redefining psychopathy.

'For female psychopaths this may veer towards manipulation through seduction, relational aggression, and spreading rumours and lies about people aimed at gaining personal advantage and preferment over those people.' 

Again, this is normal female behavior, not psychopathic. As a psychopath, I didn’t partake in any of this nonsense because it was emotional BS that I didn’t have time or inclination towards, however, I watched most women wholeheartedly take part in it trying to weed out their competition.

What's more, people generally attribute general psychopathic characteristics to males rather than to females – such as being insincere, deceitful, antagonistic, unempathetic and lacking in emotional depth.

The only things in this list that have anything to do with psychopathy and not normal humans is “unempathetic” because we literally cannot feel it and lacking in emotional depth. All humans are insincere and deceitful, and some may be antagonistic, but as a psychopath, it doesn’t seem like a winning strategy to me. That is what a psychopath is going to focus on, what wins us the day, and antagonism rarely is a beneficial choice.

'Even when females display some of the key traits associated with psychopathy because these are seen as male characteristics they may not be labelled as such, even when they should be,' he said. 

Well, you have only managed to list two accurately so far… so… maybe you could demonstrate where you are getting your information, or I don’t know, give us a reason to listen to what you have to say because you have done some actual work in this area of study… something? Anything?

Current scientific evidence suggests that male psychopaths outnumber females by around six to one. 

Where are you getting these numbers? Cite something. Anything.

But Dr Boddy thinks the real ratio of male to female psychopathy is about 1.2 to one – up to five times higher than previously suggested. 

Based on what? You are not a psychologist, and you do not conduct studies. However, I dug into this so-called number, and it comes from you. directly. Not from a study, not from actual experts, and not from any meta-analysis, and there is nothing about your education that suggests you have the qualifications to make or create such a claim. You are not an expert on psychopaths, and so far your entire position has been stated from “because I say so”. That does not an argument make.

'Because of a lack of studies of female psychopaths not enough is known about them,' he said. 

And yet, here you are, making sh*t up because it sells your books, which are garbage. I don’t have to read them to know that, because everything that you have said thus far has been disinformation.

According to the academic, signs of psychopathy typically exhibited by females are sexual in nature – and include flirtation, seduction and manipulation.  

I cannot help but notice that not even the article’s author is willing to say, “According to the DOCTOR, signs of psychopathy typically exhibited by females are sexual in nature – and include flirtation, seduction and manipulation.”

Why would that be? Because they have the basic understanding that having a business degree does not remotely make you an expert in psychopathy. So they weasel-word around it by calling you an “academic”, when in reality, you have no reason to be making a name in the world of psychopathy because you know nothing about it. You are similar to Sam Vaknin. You say what will get people who don’t know any better to pony up their hard-earned cash to pay for your expertise that is based on nothing.

I write about psychopathy because:

1. I am one, so I know what I experience and what I do not

2. Because while I am only a cohort of one, I actually include the research in my writing.

I don’t make the argument of, “because I say so”, I back up what I have to say with science. Nothing in this article has done so, and it is a mockery of people that have put in the work.

Psychopathic women also express violence, but it is usually of a verbal rather than physical nature – like shouting, swearing or screaming.

I am getting tired of writing the word, nope, yet here we are again. These are high emotional states. Psychopaths cannot experience high emotional states. This is psychopathy 101, and you would know this if you had done one miniscule bit of actual research regarding psychopaths and had critical thinking skills, but one, I don’t think you did, and two, I don’t think you do. You haven’t demonstrated that you have or did either, so we are left to draw the conclusion that you couldn’t be bothered.

It's therefore more subtle than violence expressed by male psychopaths, which tends to be more physical. 

As predictable as it may be, it seems that you do not know the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder, or what they would call in the UK, dissocial personality disorder. This is a rather rookie mistake, and one that you should have been far past if you were going to playact being an “expert” in psychopathy. However, you didn’t, and you include “violence” as an aspect of psychopathy. You would know, had you bothered to do any research, that violence is related to factor two traits, not factor one traits.

Factor one-psychopathy

Factor two-ASPD

I assume you at least know what those two factors are from. I won’t even go into why this checklist is an exercise in futility when it comes to being an effective screening tool. I have already written a three part series about why that is, but the fact that you included “violence” when it comes to psychopathy is amusing. Nothing about psychopathy indicates any sort of violence, and female psychopaths, again, are not going to be highly emotional, but man, you sure think that we are because everything that you have listed so far is highly emotional.

Also, female psychopaths tend to use words, rather than violence, to achieve their aims, differing from how male psychopaths tend to operate,' he said. 

You have literally repeated the same thing over and over again. You haven’t said a single new thing in paragraphs, and you have presented nothing in terms of evidence of your claims. Nothing.

The academic is concerned that studies may be failing to identify female psychopaths because they are largely based around profiles of criminal and male psychopaths. 

*Head on desk* Oh my dear lord… you already said that, and you are not an “academic” in psychopathy. You know what is super amusing to me? You state that the studies don’t identify female psychopaths because they are based on criminal and male psychopaths. Let me break down the problems in this one statement alone.

1. They are almost all based on male criminal psychopaths. Not criminals and male psychopaths. One cohort, not two. There are some survey type studies that have been done that don’t include criminals, but those are the only ones that are valid in their cohorts. The ones that are done not on criminals have been done on college students, and they are too young to be able to provide any meaningful information as their brains are not developed yet.

2. Female psychopaths aren’t being identified because people who don’t know what they are talking about regarding psychopathy, you, I am speaking about you and people like you, invent traits for female psychopaths that don’t apply to female psychopaths.
   
   Why do they do this? I have no idea. I am tempted to say for ego, but perhaps it is a form of sexism. I say that because they traits they dream up are very male mentality. Female psychopaths use sex and emotional manipulation to get what they want. Female psychopaths are like these totally unrealistic movie characters. It’s pretty cringy. Not gonna lie. You can almost hear the male fantasy surrounding it. Actually, that might be exactly what it is. Female neurotypicals find the idea of male psychopaths to be sexually arousing. There are whole websites based on it, and their fantasy regarding them is a very hypermasculine one. It makes total sense that the male fantasy about female psychopaths is exactly the same construction but through their idealized version of us.

Ew. Just ew.

Part of the problem is a widely-used method to diagnose psychopathy, known as the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, which is biased towards identifying male psychopathy signs. 

Umm… want to know how I know you’re wrong about that?

You have completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

The LSRP measures two scales.

Scores range from 1 (low) to 5 (high).

Your score from primary psychopathy has been calculated as 5. Primary psychopathy is the affective aspects of psychopathy; a lack of empathy for other people and tolerance for antisocial orientations.

Your score from secondary psychopathy has been calculated as 2.3. Secondary psychopathy is the antisocial aspects of psychopathy; rule breaking and a lack of effort towards socially rewarded behavior.

With two scores, results of the LSRP are very suitable for being plotted. Below is the distribution of how other people who have taken this test have scored.

You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 99% of people who have taken this test.

You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 39.13% of people who have taken this test.

That’s how. I have taken the Levenson, and my score is precisely in line with my actual diagnosis that was done by actual doctors, not people pretending to have relevant credentials so they can sell their books.

The traits are not different male to female. The fact that you are trying to make them so is something that you should think about. You are trying to get psychopathy to fit some weird idea you have in your head instead of looking at it for what it is. It is a difference in the brain’s structure and chemical processing. The results of that for a female vs a male psychopath aren’t really all that different. Males may tend toward higher aggression due to having testosterone, but that difference will slowly balance itself out some as they age and testosterone becomes less of a factor in their lives.

You want female psychopaths to be very different for some reason, but being one, I can tell you, you are wrong.

'If female psychopathy expresses differently, then measures designed to capture and identify male, criminal, psychopaths may be inadequate at identifying female non-criminal, psychopaths,' he said. 

Just because you keep wishing it, doesn’t make it so. You said, “if”, so I will grant you some leeway on this passage, but unfortunately for you, you’re simply wrong about your assumptions about us. I would tell you to go back to the drawing board, but no thank you. I have very little interest in whatever your next foray into psychopathy would be. I know you already wrote a book about so-called “psychopathic bosses” but described the traits of a malignant narcissist instead. Well done there, well done.

'This has implications for the criminal justice system because current risk management decisions involving partners and children may be faulty. 

Psychopaths aren’t risks. People like you are. Are there psychopaths that are also d*cks? Sure, and they will reap what they sow in their lives. They aren’t a “risk”, however. An individual is a risk, not a group of people. Psychopaths in general simply live our lives and blend into society. We aren’t looking to create problems because problems are inconvenient.

'It also has implications for organisational leadership selection decisions because female leaders cannot automatically be assumed to be more honest, caring and concerned with issues such as corporate social responsibility.' 

Holy lord… did you just make this statement with the notion that because female psychopaths exist, and because they are not as readily identified, that’s the reason that, “female leaders cannot automatically be assumed to be more honest, caring and concerned with issues such as corporate social responsibility”? Oh my… this tells me so much. This answers a lot of questions as to your motivations.

You think that females in general somehow are bestowed with honesty and integrity. That they are “caring” and “concerned”. Wow… you do not know anything about women… like at all. This is why you are looking to attribute this behavior to psychopathic females, and that is because you don’t know anything about females to begin with.

Everything that you think “psychopathic females” are about is just women, dude. I don’t know how to break that to you, and maybe that is like a shock to you, but every single female alive knows this about other women. I don’t know what rock guys hide under or what delusion they feed themselves to be blind to this, but it is just standard operating behavior for females with other females.

Also, since you seem to be all about business, none of what you describe is odd for a female in that situation. Females climbing a corporate ladder are going to use sex and manipulation. There is a reason that this is a common theme in like every drama about the business world ever. If she wants to get ahead faster, using her feminine wiles is a fast track to get it done. You should know this based on what you are actually an expert in, and if you don’t, pay more attention and stop believing the lies females feed you in interviews that you apparently are taking on as fact.

Dr Boddy is set to give a talk on female psychopaths at the Cambridge Festival on March 16, where he will present evidence from his own and other studies to argue that there are more female psychopaths than anyone has previously imagined. 

You have nothing to present other than nonsense. You have no credentials to be doing psychological or neurological studies, so that’s BS, and whatever “studies” you are using to manufacture the information in this article are not studies. They are probably pulled from sites like Psychopath Free and Love Fraud. Just a guess, but it’s the same quality of “work” as those. I also don’t think you have anything because you offered nothing to back up your claims. I would advise you not to give the talk for a couple of reasons…

1. You are providing bad information

2. You are fleecing people out of their money by presenting the bad information, which is something that I think you should soul-search about a little bit. I don’t think you will, as making money appears to be your sole motivating factor. You know, grifting, and as much as I would like to admire the grift, yours is laughably bad

but I won’t advise you of anything, the date has already passed, so it is a moot point, and I don’t think you would have listened anyway. You seem to be very self-convinced that of your rightness, and ego has a habit of getting in the way of logic and reason.

The expert, who has been researching effects of psychopaths in the workplace since 2005, recently revealed the key signs your boss is a psychopath. 

“The expert”. Who writes like that? No one that is taking their subject very seriously, that’s for sure. I have never read an article about an actual expert that addresses them so strangely. I am not providing the link to the second crap article. It is probably taken directly from Hare’s, “Snakes in Suits”, and reworded so this guy can keep cosplaying being relevant.

These include a 'superficial charm', a lack of remorse or sincerity, the tendency to cheat, and being emotionally shallow.

Weird, he forgot to mention his favorite one, “violence”. Amazing how psychopathy is so malleable when it needs to be. I do have to put this quote in from another article I found when looking for where the above quote also appeared. Go figure, it’s in another article that this dude was interviewed for.

Dr. Boddy said, "Highly psychopathic senior businesspeople who were quite plausibly genuine psychopaths are visible in commercial history."

Sooo… highly psychopathic people might have been psychopaths… Nope. You can’t say that they are “highly psychopathic” as a definitive claim, and then say that they were possibly psychopathic backing off on your definitive claim, in the same sentence.

Oh, by the way, dear readers, that was the end of the article. Did you notice what was missing? The seven signs of a psychopathic female. They were in an infographic on the side in a list formation. You would think that an article that speaks about seven things, would want to go through them clearly and carefully, but nah, why bother with that? As for this “expert”. Would you like to see his credentials?

Experience

Anglia Ruskin University

Anglia Ruskin University

2 years

Deputy Head, School of Management

Sep 2022 - Present 1 year 7 months

Cambridge, England, United Kingdom

Administration, research, doctoral supervision and teaching.

Associate Professor in Management

Apr 2022 - Present 2 years

Chelmsford, England, United Kingdom (Remotely)

I am supervising various doctoral students through their research and teaching into courses on research methods and techniques.

Curtin University Graphic

Research Fellow

Curtin University

Mar 2021 - Dec 2023 2 years 10 months

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

University of Tasmania Graphic

Professor Of Management

University of Tasmania

Apr 2018 - Nov 2021 3 years 8 months

Hobart

Professor of Leadership and Organisation Behaviour

Middlesex University Business School

Aug 2012 - Nov 2021 9 years 4 months

I am continuing my research into toxic leadership, corporate psychopaths and the global financial crisis.

Senior Lecturer in Marketing

Nottingham Trent University

Jan 2011 - Oct 2011 10 months

Nottingham Business School

Visiting Professor in Marketing Research

Lincoln University (UK)

Apr 2008 - Jan 2011 2 years 10 months

University of Lincoln, UK

Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing

Fellow of the Australian Institute of Management

Middlesex University

Middlesex University

4 years

Honorary Visiting Professor in Marketing

Oct 2004 - Jan 2011 6 years 4 months

Middlesex University Business School

Honorary Visiting Professor in Marketing

2004 - 2008 4 years

Senior Lecturer in Marketing

Nottingham Business School

2011 - 2011 less than a year

University of Adelaide Graphic

Project Manager, Service Excellence

University of Adelaide

Apr 2009 - Dec 2009 9 months

This position involves using research and Lean Six Sigma methods to improve the processes of the University. The project is a 'whole of university' approach, seeking to streamline processes across all areas, including the attraction and retention of students and the completion of higher research degree students. Projects so far have improved library services, enabled employees to manage their e-mail in an efficient and timely manner and a project just finishing will enable new staff to hit the…Show more

Associate Professor in Marketing

Middlesex University Business School

2000 - 2004 4 years

Associate Professor in Marketing

President

Asia Market Intelligence, Korea

1993 - 1996 3 years

Managing Director

Frank Small and Associates, Korea

1989 - 1993 4 years

General Manager

Frank Small and Associates, Taiwan

1987 - 1989 2 years

Research Executive

Frank Small and Associates, Sydney

1986 - 1987 1 year

Education

Curtin University Graphic

Curtin University of Technology

DBA Management

2004 - 2009

Activities and Societies: Awarded Doctorate

Middlesex University Graphic

Middlesex University

Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education Teaching qualification in higher education

2000 - 2002

University of Lincoln Graphic

University of Lincoln

MA Marketing (Distinction)

1997 - 1997

The Market Research Society

Diploma in Market Research Market research

1984 - 1986

Liverpool John Moores University Graphic

Liverpool John Moores University

Postgraduate Diploma in Marketing Management Marketing Management

1984 - 1985

CIM | The Chartered Institute of Marketing Graphic

The Chartered Institute of Marketing

Diploma in Marketing Marketing

1984 - 1985

I will save you the trouble of reading every single line. The words, “psychology” and “neurology” are mentioned exactly once each. Bother of them in the same sentence, it is at the beginning of this post, and I am the one that wrote it. They are not in his experience at all. That’s the “expert” that is going around pretending to be an expert in something that he knows less than zero about. All he knows are myths that have no basis in reality, and he is spreading those myths under the auspices of being a doctor, not telling people that he is not a doctor in anything other than business marketing.