There is this pattern of "burning money" I've noticed with this kind of personality (Joan). Like, sometimes these people have millions and it just disappears... "Somewhere". Like, more money than you would expect someone to be able to consume in drugs if they were not going to OD.
I believe there is a lot of karma coming for a lot of people. This kind of thing is malicious but I have also heard of an elderly woman who is blind and deaf, just sits in a house on her own all the time wishing to die; and her daughter went and lived in Australia and never interacts with her. Just "not" doing a good thing can be evil as well.
Also, now you mention it I suppose it is frightening in that it is her sister but, well, I would not put this past family members of mine so, there's that. It is notable though that in order to protect others the "good" people, those that look out for others best interests, have to have a fair bit of strength and resources. Disagreeableness is often a trait that has a lot of positive utility.
This story is very upsetting, mainly due to the fact that anyone could do this to a family member. I know it’s true, though I’ve heard other nightmare stories like this.!
Completely unrelated to this post, but I just finished watching 'Ripley' on Netflix and am intrigued as to what your thoughts would be on whether the main character, Tom Ripley, comes across as a psychopath. For me he's one of very very few TV or film characters that actually reminds me of how you describe yourself. He's almost completely emotionless throughout the 8 episodes, the strongest emotion we see is a flicker of mild annoyance at times. He's totally cool and calm under pressure, even in high stress situations where most people would be falling apart, and instead seems to go into a highly focused state where he's totally absorbed in whatever action is necessary to fix whatever problem is at hand. He shows no sign of fear, even when narrowly avoiding being caught for multiple homicides and (presumably) thrown in jail for life. When around other people he does a very good impression of acting 'normal', but it's obvious from how he is when we see him alone that it's not really him, but is an act he puts on to avoid detection, so basically a mask, but it's very convincing. He doesn't seem to have any kind of romantic attraction to any of the characters, although it is a bit ambiguous - it's possible he's attracted to another male character but if he is then there's no real outward sign of it like there would normally be. He seems more interested in BECOMING this person and living their lifestyle, than in being with them.
The only thing that doesn't seem to quite fit with him being a psychopath is that his first act of violence appears to be triggered by being told he's uninvited from a Christmas gathering with friends... he doesn't really show any anger about it but it does seem to be the trigger for violence - but if he was a psychopath why would he care if his 'friends' didn't invite him somewhere?
If you ever happen to watch it I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are - I'm talking specifically about Andrew Scott's portrayal in the recent series, I've seen the film years ago and don't remember the character being played like that, and no idea how he was portrayed in the original books.
That would be a pretty significant departure from psychopathy. Being invited to something is simply a reminder that there was an event to begin with. Being invited means obligation and setting aside of self-focus. Sure, the event may turn out to be worth that effort if required to attend, but that would purely be an afterthought, not something considered ahead of time.
Exactly, so if a psychopath was invited somewhere and then uninvited without much reason given, just an implication that 'we don't really want you there', they wouldn't take that as anything to be upset or angry about, cos they wouldn't care about the social acceptance/rejection angle, only the practical side of it, like you said.
Which makes Ripley a confusing character, because every single other thing he says and does is so close to psychopathy (your definition, not the Hollywood stereotype) that it's almost eerie, and from an NT point of view a bit freaky that Scott was able to play it so well. He's just so completely emotionally flat throughout (except when mask-on), and seems devoid of a single scrap of doubt or fear about anything, you can even see it in his body language and the way he walks, never a second of hesitation.
It's possible that the violence was Ripley's plan all along, as a means to the goal of taking over the other guy's identity/income/lifestyle, and not actually a reaction to being uninvited, so maybe it's not a contradiction after all.
If you ever do happen to watch it, let us know what you think!
Nope, we would take it as, "Yay! Now I can do stuff that I want!"
Most writings in fiction that are psychopathic like, are going to contain fatal flaws because they really have no idea what they are talking about. I suppose that is par for the course, however, because even so-called researchers contradict themselves on a regular basis. I don't think it reasonable to think that if they can't get it right, fiction is certain going to have significant errors.
Very true, a bunch of NTs is likely never going to come up with a perfect portrayal of a psychopath, it's just too far removed from our own experience. If you watched it you'd probably spot other flaws too, that I missed.
I'm not even sure if the writers intended for the character to be psychopathic, I watched some clips from the 1999 film and he definitely wasn't psychopathic in that. But it's the way Andrew Scott portrays him, I was sitting there thinking 'oh my god has this guy read Athena's blog?!' It's so rare and so odd to see a character in film or TV that's missing so many of the normal NT emotional cues, reactions, expressions etc - the absence is deafening, like your analogy of the fan suddenly being switched off. Most actors portraying so-called 'psychopaths' play it much more like NT narcissist or sociopath, but Scott's Ripley is different - there's such a strange flatness and stillness to him, one reviewer described it as 'reptilian'.
Which is even more impressive given that Scott has played other characters that are very much neurotypical and overflowing with emotion!
I liked Amos Burton from 'The Expanse' as portraying a psychopath. I read all ten books and watched the series twice (the series are not nearly as good and psychologically accurate). But I think they have got Amos right. I think they got a LOT right including the general mismanagement of government structures, the unbelievable arrogance of them, and how it causes so much misery. There is a lot that is only correct only once I reflected on it quite a bit, like the fact that the Epstein drive, the advanced space travel in their universe, was only created in a short period of a free market when people colonised Mars without government intervention to begin with.
The trouble is, in my thinking, that NT's have emotional agendas they put into shows that contradict with their accurate portrayal. NT's usually want their preferred interpretation of the moral highground, or certain preferable individuals (such as in the Expanse show Naomi) to be seen as the alpha or top dog in a way, and it simply contradicts reality. In reality most NT's will have a healthy fear of the psychopath if they understood them and wouldn't be "Alpha-ing" their way around those individuals but probably seeking co operation.
I checked out a couple of clips and I definitely see what you mean, especially in the 'I'm that guy' scene - it's that combination of having no problem using extreme violence to achieve a goal or solve a problem... but at the same time showing no sign of enjoying it in any way, or getting anything from it emotionally. Just purely utilitarian, a means to an end, with no emotional ramification at all. Other people - neurotypicals, sociopaths, narcissists, all kinds of personality disorders - we might all have different emotional reactions to killing someone, but there would be a reaction one way or another. That's what's so unique about psychopathy I think - the ability to remain completely emotionally neutral to just about anything.
There's a bit of a debate raging in YouTube comments about what Amos Burton's diagnosis would be - lots of people saying they think more likely a sociopath than a psychopath, but they might be basing that just on the TV series. Do the books give any clues either way?
The character I keep thinking of for comparison, is Hannibal Lecter in the scenes with Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs - he's obviously going for either psychopath or sociopath, but there's a definite sense that he's enjoying freaking Clarice out, and choosing his words carefully for maximum shock value - which is very unpsychopathic behaviour if you ask me!
Wow, Joan's own actions are shocking enough, but the fact that there were multiple other people in on the plan, who apparently either didn't see a problem with it, or just didn't care, is quite astounding. I know you said Leanne's protected from this happening again now, but I'm still a bit worried about her to be honest, Joan seems totally ruthless. I think she's the one that needs to be put in a home where she can't do any more harm to anyone! Do you think there's a case for any criminal charges to be brought against Joan?
There have been discussions about that, but at the end of the day, Leanne is eighty and her time in this world is short. Joan is still her sister, and the time it will take for her to convince herself that Joan truly meant to do all the things that she did, it is unlikely that it would happen in a time frame that legal charges are feasible. She does go back and forth about suing her, but so far her guilt about suing her sister is winning out.
I agree, she should. She allowed Joan so much access because it was her sister who kept reassuring her that she didn't want or need anything from her. Leanne had no reason (in her mind) to distrust her. Joan knew that, and used it against her. It is why I always say, never give the benefit of the doubt to people you don't know if you can trust them implicitly. Especially if they have done nothing to earn it.
Imo this is one of the drawbacks of no longer living in communities. I was on twitter the other day and a guy who is a millionaire on there had brought his parents a house near his. That is the ultimate I think because with constant family contact the alarm bells can ring very quickly if Joan turns up again. Regardless of what Leanne's attitude towards it is.
There is this pattern of "burning money" I've noticed with this kind of personality (Joan). Like, sometimes these people have millions and it just disappears... "Somewhere". Like, more money than you would expect someone to be able to consume in drugs if they were not going to OD.
I believe there is a lot of karma coming for a lot of people. This kind of thing is malicious but I have also heard of an elderly woman who is blind and deaf, just sits in a house on her own all the time wishing to die; and her daughter went and lived in Australia and never interacts with her. Just "not" doing a good thing can be evil as well.
Also, now you mention it I suppose it is frightening in that it is her sister but, well, I would not put this past family members of mine so, there's that. It is notable though that in order to protect others the "good" people, those that look out for others best interests, have to have a fair bit of strength and resources. Disagreeableness is often a trait that has a lot of positive utility.
I agree, it can be a very protective trait.
This story is very upsetting, mainly due to the fact that anyone could do this to a family member. I know it’s true, though I’ve heard other nightmare stories like this.!
Yes, it is an awful thing to do to another person.
Completely unrelated to this post, but I just finished watching 'Ripley' on Netflix and am intrigued as to what your thoughts would be on whether the main character, Tom Ripley, comes across as a psychopath. For me he's one of very very few TV or film characters that actually reminds me of how you describe yourself. He's almost completely emotionless throughout the 8 episodes, the strongest emotion we see is a flicker of mild annoyance at times. He's totally cool and calm under pressure, even in high stress situations where most people would be falling apart, and instead seems to go into a highly focused state where he's totally absorbed in whatever action is necessary to fix whatever problem is at hand. He shows no sign of fear, even when narrowly avoiding being caught for multiple homicides and (presumably) thrown in jail for life. When around other people he does a very good impression of acting 'normal', but it's obvious from how he is when we see him alone that it's not really him, but is an act he puts on to avoid detection, so basically a mask, but it's very convincing. He doesn't seem to have any kind of romantic attraction to any of the characters, although it is a bit ambiguous - it's possible he's attracted to another male character but if he is then there's no real outward sign of it like there would normally be. He seems more interested in BECOMING this person and living their lifestyle, than in being with them.
The only thing that doesn't seem to quite fit with him being a psychopath is that his first act of violence appears to be triggered by being told he's uninvited from a Christmas gathering with friends... he doesn't really show any anger about it but it does seem to be the trigger for violence - but if he was a psychopath why would he care if his 'friends' didn't invite him somewhere?
If you ever happen to watch it I'd be interested to know what your thoughts are - I'm talking specifically about Andrew Scott's portrayal in the recent series, I've seen the film years ago and don't remember the character being played like that, and no idea how he was portrayed in the original books.
That would be a pretty significant departure from psychopathy. Being invited to something is simply a reminder that there was an event to begin with. Being invited means obligation and setting aside of self-focus. Sure, the event may turn out to be worth that effort if required to attend, but that would purely be an afterthought, not something considered ahead of time.
Exactly, so if a psychopath was invited somewhere and then uninvited without much reason given, just an implication that 'we don't really want you there', they wouldn't take that as anything to be upset or angry about, cos they wouldn't care about the social acceptance/rejection angle, only the practical side of it, like you said.
Which makes Ripley a confusing character, because every single other thing he says and does is so close to psychopathy (your definition, not the Hollywood stereotype) that it's almost eerie, and from an NT point of view a bit freaky that Scott was able to play it so well. He's just so completely emotionally flat throughout (except when mask-on), and seems devoid of a single scrap of doubt or fear about anything, you can even see it in his body language and the way he walks, never a second of hesitation.
It's possible that the violence was Ripley's plan all along, as a means to the goal of taking over the other guy's identity/income/lifestyle, and not actually a reaction to being uninvited, so maybe it's not a contradiction after all.
If you ever do happen to watch it, let us know what you think!
Nope, we would take it as, "Yay! Now I can do stuff that I want!"
Most writings in fiction that are psychopathic like, are going to contain fatal flaws because they really have no idea what they are talking about. I suppose that is par for the course, however, because even so-called researchers contradict themselves on a regular basis. I don't think it reasonable to think that if they can't get it right, fiction is certain going to have significant errors.
Very true, a bunch of NTs is likely never going to come up with a perfect portrayal of a psychopath, it's just too far removed from our own experience. If you watched it you'd probably spot other flaws too, that I missed.
I'm not even sure if the writers intended for the character to be psychopathic, I watched some clips from the 1999 film and he definitely wasn't psychopathic in that. But it's the way Andrew Scott portrays him, I was sitting there thinking 'oh my god has this guy read Athena's blog?!' It's so rare and so odd to see a character in film or TV that's missing so many of the normal NT emotional cues, reactions, expressions etc - the absence is deafening, like your analogy of the fan suddenly being switched off. Most actors portraying so-called 'psychopaths' play it much more like NT narcissist or sociopath, but Scott's Ripley is different - there's such a strange flatness and stillness to him, one reviewer described it as 'reptilian'.
Which is even more impressive given that Scott has played other characters that are very much neurotypical and overflowing with emotion!
Interesting indeed. If I have some free time, I will check it out
I liked Amos Burton from 'The Expanse' as portraying a psychopath. I read all ten books and watched the series twice (the series are not nearly as good and psychologically accurate). But I think they have got Amos right. I think they got a LOT right including the general mismanagement of government structures, the unbelievable arrogance of them, and how it causes so much misery. There is a lot that is only correct only once I reflected on it quite a bit, like the fact that the Epstein drive, the advanced space travel in their universe, was only created in a short period of a free market when people colonised Mars without government intervention to begin with.
The trouble is, in my thinking, that NT's have emotional agendas they put into shows that contradict with their accurate portrayal. NT's usually want their preferred interpretation of the moral highground, or certain preferable individuals (such as in the Expanse show Naomi) to be seen as the alpha or top dog in a way, and it simply contradicts reality. In reality most NT's will have a healthy fear of the psychopath if they understood them and wouldn't be "Alpha-ing" their way around those individuals but probably seeking co operation.
I checked out a couple of clips and I definitely see what you mean, especially in the 'I'm that guy' scene - it's that combination of having no problem using extreme violence to achieve a goal or solve a problem... but at the same time showing no sign of enjoying it in any way, or getting anything from it emotionally. Just purely utilitarian, a means to an end, with no emotional ramification at all. Other people - neurotypicals, sociopaths, narcissists, all kinds of personality disorders - we might all have different emotional reactions to killing someone, but there would be a reaction one way or another. That's what's so unique about psychopathy I think - the ability to remain completely emotionally neutral to just about anything.
There's a bit of a debate raging in YouTube comments about what Amos Burton's diagnosis would be - lots of people saying they think more likely a sociopath than a psychopath, but they might be basing that just on the TV series. Do the books give any clues either way?
The character I keep thinking of for comparison, is Hannibal Lecter in the scenes with Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs - he's obviously going for either psychopath or sociopath, but there's a definite sense that he's enjoying freaking Clarice out, and choosing his words carefully for maximum shock value - which is very unpsychopathic behaviour if you ask me!
Wow, Joan's own actions are shocking enough, but the fact that there were multiple other people in on the plan, who apparently either didn't see a problem with it, or just didn't care, is quite astounding. I know you said Leanne's protected from this happening again now, but I'm still a bit worried about her to be honest, Joan seems totally ruthless. I think she's the one that needs to be put in a home where she can't do any more harm to anyone! Do you think there's a case for any criminal charges to be brought against Joan?
There have been discussions about that, but at the end of the day, Leanne is eighty and her time in this world is short. Joan is still her sister, and the time it will take for her to convince herself that Joan truly meant to do all the things that she did, it is unlikely that it would happen in a time frame that legal charges are feasible. She does go back and forth about suing her, but so far her guilt about suing her sister is winning out.
If that’s the case, Leanne should at least establish some boundaries to prevent something like this from happening again.
No being alone with her. No trusting her with legal or financial information. No inviting her over to “help”.
Having a relationship with someone doesn’t mean you have to put your livelihood on the line.
I agree, she should. She allowed Joan so much access because it was her sister who kept reassuring her that she didn't want or need anything from her. Leanne had no reason (in her mind) to distrust her. Joan knew that, and used it against her. It is why I always say, never give the benefit of the doubt to people you don't know if you can trust them implicitly. Especially if they have done nothing to earn it.
Imo this is one of the drawbacks of no longer living in communities. I was on twitter the other day and a guy who is a millionaire on there had brought his parents a house near his. That is the ultimate I think because with constant family contact the alarm bells can ring very quickly if Joan turns up again. Regardless of what Leanne's attitude towards it is.