When Even The Daily Mail Doesn't Believe You

Maybe it's time to hang it up...

How many of you are familiar with the author of, Confessions of a Sociopath? I am guessing most of you are aware of the book’s existence, but you may not be familiar with the author’s ever-changing claims about what her supposed diagnosis is. I was sent this article for me to break it down, and break it down I shall.

M.E. Thomas, who will be referred to for convenience as “Thomas”, published this dreadful book all the way back in 2013. For the most part, I ignored this writing nightmare, as she claimed to be a sociopath, and that had nothing to do with me. I did read it, but it was long enough ago to not have too much of a recollection of the book. What I do recall, is how often I have been asked about it, but remember, she is claiming “sociopathy”, and I do my best to let sociopaths speak for themselves.

You can go on Amazon and read the reviews of the book, and they speak about the things that she claims make her oh so terribly sociopathic. One is that she drowned a rat in a pool. Yup, super sociopathic. She ended the life of a pest. Most people would do the same thing. What’s the alternative? You get it out of the pool, and it runs into your house? I am guessing that isn’t going to be the preferred outcome. It’s either you kill it, or rescue it. I suppose you could let it drown, but… I mean… the pool though, right? I don’t want to swim in the rat coffin, do you? Probably not.

Thomas wrote her book claiming to be a sociopath. However, she was self-diagnosed as one. It was only after her book was published that she had a friend “diagnose” her. Let’s be frank, that means nothing. Everyone was aware of the necessary outcome, and a friend should never be diagnosing sociopathy in someone.

For the most part, she did her press rounds, got her fifteen minutes, and then faded into the background. If you read the reviews of her book, the main theme of the negative ones are the levels of narcissism that the reader picked up in the prose, and it was a huge turn-off to them. Some enough so that it turned them off to the book all together. You would think that would more or less be the end of it, but remember that narcissism and self-diagnosis? It came back for a second time.

Thomas comes out of the woodwork with a brand new and shiny diagnosis as a psychopath. She simply decided one day that she was a psychopath, not a sociopath. As far as I have seen, she doesn’t proclaim that there was any sort of mistake when she was “diagnosed”. She just decided one day that her whole narrative was inconvenient, and she was now a psychopath. Along with this total change in who she claims to be, she decides that she will also allow herself to be known to the world.

When Thomas was on her press junket for, Confessions of a Sociopath, she hid her identity. She did all of her interviews in disguise, one of which was on Dr. Phil. She did not get a warm welcome by Dr. Phil, and it was fairly obvious that he didn’t believe her, nor was he willing to pretend that he did. Now, however, she has a new persona, so everyone might as well see her in all her glory. She decided to start working with PsychopathyIS, which is a grift. And I mean that. They are an absolute grift. I went into this in much more detail, here:

Let's Take A Test

I won’t go back over already covered material, but basically they recommend that children can be and should be assessed for psychopathy, and treatment for children that are psychopathic is medication and institutionalization. It’s pretty appalling. This is directly from their site:

YES, PSYCHOPATHY IS TREATABLE.

And while there’s a variety of ways to improve symptoms, there’s still much to be done to develop more effective options.

The most successful approaches to treating psychopathy are multimodal. This means they include multiple approaches at once, including psychotherapy, behavioral skills training, and recognition of the important roles of family, school, peers, and the community. They may also incorporate medication.

Below, we provide more information about all of these treatment options.

INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED THERAPIES

FAMILY-FOCUSED THERAPIES

RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT

MEDICATION

Back to Thomas. So she is a newly reinvented psychopath that does videos for this site where she claims to be a psychopath. I know because people send them to me all the time, asking if that’s me. No, no it is not. Now, because she has her spotlight back, she decided to speak to the Daily Mail. I have only seen the last paragraph so far, which indicated that they were less than impressed, much like Dr. Phil. Let’s have a look see, shall we?

‘I'm a psychopath and proud': Lawyer reveals what it's REALLY like living with the personality disorder - and how not having ego or empathy has allowed her to excel in life

Love that title for her.

A self-proclaimed psychopath who goes has found ways to use the disorder to further her career as a lawyer - and recently shared her tricks to help others become more successful.

At least we aren’t claiming to have been diagnosed by another friend that was able to correct the first friend that confirmed her self-diagnosis of being a sociopath.

M.E. Thomas, who practices in California, has advised non-psychopaths that they must let go of everyone else's opinions and stopping identifying with things that they can't control

All right, so has every self-help book on the planet. Having read, The Secret, does not make one a go-to person to seek advice from. I have also said this, and I have not read, The Secret, so consider me even less informed when it comes to advice giving. In other words, this is pretty standard advice. You can get this from a fortune cookie, or from your resident psychopath. Either way, not world shattering.

The second tip is to be emotion-free, something that she's found increasingly easy because her emotional range is roughly equivalent to that of a three-year-old.

That’s weird, because in her book she claims that she can “force herself to feel emotions”, which is not how three-year-olds are. They wear that stuff out in the open, loudly and proudly. Anyway, do not ignore your emotions entirely or try to be emotion free. That is terrible advice. You were born with those emotions, your world has been defined with those in place. It is one thing to be a bit more detached from them, and not have them rule your entire life, but don’t remove your emotions altogether. That would be asinine.

This has given her two main advantages to be more successful in her career: she doesn't mind asking stupid questions because it doesn't hurt her ego and she doesn't care about gendered expectations.

None of that has to do with psychopathy. Literally anyone can do that. It might be easier for a psychopath, which of course she is not one, but anyone can with the proper motivation.

M.E. Thomas is her pseudonym, but many reports have suggested her real name is Jamie Rebecca Lund, according to Above The Law.

I mean, you can just look at her speaking on videos on the PsychopathyIS YouTube channel. I don’t recommend them because they are pointless wastes of time, but her identity is not in question. She sits there with a camera in her face for all to see.

Since a young age, ex-law professor and attorney Thomas said women are taught to not talk back to those in positions of power, to be smaller, and to take up less space, giving them a gendered ideology that she allegedly does not have.

Never once was I taught this. Nor were any of the women that I know, regardless of their age. Sounds to me like she is participating in another rather famous and currently popular grift, the gender grift. So, that’s super fun.

Throughout her life, Thomas said in a Business Insider op-ed that she has never internalized the actions of others.

She warned that 'people can become so wrapped up in taking offense or taking things personally that they're not part of.'

Uh-huh, and? What is the point of this being included in the article? Seriously, Daily Mail, relevant information only. Maybe it is, and I am jumping the gun. Watch, I am, and I will soon have to walk that back.

Thomas used examples of global politics and football rivalries to advise non-psychopaths that their lives will be much happier and more fulfilling if they don't associate with events that are out of their control.

Umm…

1. People need to be aware of what is happening in the world. If they don’t, things like World Wars come and smack them upside the head, and they are wondering how the hell that happened. Well, they would know, if they had been paying attention in the first place.

2. This is something that brings people joy. I don’t get it, I don’t like sports, nor do I care about rivalries, but a lot of people do, and it gives them something to invest their time and attention into. Just like I don’t understand Fantasy Football, I don’t understand sports rivalries, but I do understand human nature, and so long as it isn’t out of control in terms of it negatively impacting one’s life, have at it.

'Those things aren't you, and you can't control them,' she wrote. 'Not being swept away by a wave of something out of your control can help.'

There is a difference in things you can control, and things that you may not be in control of, but at the same time should be aware of. Being aware is different from being obsessed. That is true of anything. Don’t get obsessed with things you can or cannot control, but be aware of the world that you live in, and have hobbies.

But more than that, the California native warned that releasing any concerns about what other people think of you is imperative. 

'If you're doing something because of what it looks like to others, that's not a good reason to do it,' she wrote.

No psychopath, ever, would write that. Why? Because we use a mask, and the mask is all about looking good to other people. Why is that important? Because we like stuff. Stuff for us. And the gatekeepers of said stuff are usually neurotypical. You have to look good in the eyes of neurotypicals if they are going to help you get the stuff that you want. Making an argument that states otherwise would be hypocrisy in the extreme, if it was said by an actual psychopath. But, you know…

Thomas said her psychopathic traits have helped her excel as a lawyer because she doesn't need to tiptoe around other people's feelings.

The lawyer also doesn't mind asking stupid questions - knowing that this fearlessness gives her a 10 percent edge over others.

You already wrote this part in a slightly different way above. No repeating yourself to make the article longer. It’s annoying. Also, no, it doesn’t give you a ten percent anything. That is pretending that all humans are the same. They aren’t. I have met many extremely shrewd and savvy people that are not psychopaths. Being fearless doesn’t make me better than they are. It might even the playing field a bit between us, but humans all have strengths and weaknesses. You have to utilize both of what you have to have an advantage. Fearlessness isn’t going to cut it.

She explained that colleagues often think she's chill, calm and can handle excess amounts of stress because she doesn't feel the need to take their actions personally. 

'And I know there's no reason to put on a show,' Thomas wrote.

If you were actually a psychopath… there literally is a reason to put on a show for others. Psychopaths lack any concern for other people without it. If she was a psychopath, and she didn’t put on a show, her coworkers would think she was a coldhearted bitch.

Yet, despite saying she doesn't feel the need to put on a show for others, Thomas appeared on an episode of Dr. Phil in 2015, two years after she released her book 'Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight.'

Yup, and you can watch it and see for yourself what you think. The link is in the paragraph above.

Thomas, who refers to herself as both a sociopath and a psychopath intermittently, told Dr. Phil that she has 'carefully crafted [her] persona over the years,' adding that 'even now most people believe that I'm from a foreign country because I speak with a slight accent.'

Thomas, who lies both about being a sociopath and a psychopath…

Why would your “crafted persona” include a fake accent? That’s weird. I’m sorry, but if I knew someone that I knew for a fact was from down the street, but they spoke with a fake accent, I would find that person annoying and full of it. I have no idea what fantasy world you have to be living in to create a fake accent for no reason whatsoever, but it isn’t one I have an interest in visiting. Also, the only reason to do this is to change people’s perception of you.

1. She said, “And I know there's no reason to put on a show”. Faking an accent is literally putting on a show, but not one a psychopath would put on. I don’t think a sociopath would, either. Unless hiding out in a different country for some reason and seeking to blend in. Otherwise, this speaks to her having a negative opinion of where she is from, and is trying to up class herself by appearing to possibly be from another country. How sophisticated and posh, this woman from a foreign land. That is what she is communicating to me.

2. This is not how a psychopath thinks. The idea is to blend in, not stand out for having a fake accent. That’s just cringy.

In the new op-ed, Thomas revealed she was fired from her position as a law professor at St. Mary's University shortly after her book was released due to employers believing she was a threat to students. 

Nope. I don’t believe this for a second. This is a lie in my estimation. Why do I think it’s a lie? Because firing a professor takes a huge amount of evidence to get done. You can’t just say, “You wrote a book we don’t like”, and fire a person. You have to have proof that they did something untoward. Now granted, the UK does not have tenure. They haven’t had it in decades. They aren’t firing someone for being a self-proclaimed sociopath seems pretty sus. I found this that seems to confirm my thinking:

Once you've passed probation (which is not guaranteed but you can get extensions), you're on a permanent contract and it's fairly difficult to fire you.

Of course, if you do any kind of gross misconduct (defensible in employment law), you're gone. You CAN get fired for poor performance (in law). But the law states that your employer must do lots of things to help your performance improve (e.g. training, personal development strategy, etc).

You'd have to do literally nothing for several years to get fired for poor performance. But then this would mean never showing up which is basically gross misconduct anyway.

If you do all your teaching to an acceptable standard and your publications are decent but intermittent, the worst that will happen is you languish as a lecturer for ever.

If your publications are too sparse and in low ranking journals, you'll become a teaching monkey. It's very difficult to reverse this since you have no time for research.

Outside of the elite, UK academia can be quite a chill job if you don't mind being stuck at the same level for ever. If you want to move up, though, you have to put a tremendous amount extra effort from the lowest possible acceptable level.

Granted, if she was on probation, perhaps, but then let’s go back to this notion that she is “unknown”. This doesn’t stack up with what we know so far.

Her book came out and she supposedly hid her identity. In this article, just above, there is still, supposedly, speculation about who she really is. How many professors have ever worked at that University? Not a lot in the grand scheme of things. There is no way she is both unknown, but also a former professor at this university. The name that is listed as the suspected identity of Thomas comes from this article:

https://abovethelaw.com/2013/05/sources-and-dr-phil-offer-insights-author-of-confessions-of-a-sociopath-who-might-be-this-law-professor/

Now, digging further into the information and connecting some dots, the original publication of, Confessions of a Sociopath, was May 14th 2013. The article here claims that she appeared on Dr. Phil two years after the publication of her book. However, the air date of the episode is May 15th, 2013. How is two years later, a date that is one day after the publication of her book. Someone has their dates wrong, and I am doubting that it is Dr. Phil’s upload date stamp on YouTube for the promo of this show:

Wednesday 05/15: "I Abducted a Baby" / Confessions of a Sociopath - Show Promo

So, where is the discrepancy? If anyone has this book in their possession, would you mind grabbing it and checking the copyright date for the original release? If you do, please put it in the comments. All I can point out is that there are some serious issues with the dates here, but where that is arising from, that I cannot say. I am guessing that the problem is in the Daily Mail article, which means that the reporter didn’t do a good job.

I might need to actually watch that Dr. Phil segment. I have seen it in the past, but again, this was back when she was claiming sociopathy, and people would ask me about her. I know I have seen it, but I don’t recall anything about it. Fine, I will watch it. That might clear things up. Chances are he mentions the book and asks her about writing it, so the dates might be discussed there.

Good lord… this is dreadful…

Remember that back then she claimed to be a sociopath, yet in this interview she says she had a stable upbringing, but in her books she claimed that her parents were abusive.

I am not kidding you, she actually says:

One of my favorite past times is ruining people. I mean that I'm able to get into their head in such a way that I become sort of a puppeteer I do something and they react in a particular way. It's very satisfying when I think of ruining somebody I can't help to salivate the way that you might when you're thinking of a juicy steak. In some ways I think my enjoyment of ruining people is the best reflection of my sociopathy. It is probably my most malicious personality trait.

One minute before this, and I am not kidding about that time stamp, she stated:

Even though I'm a sociopath I do have a moral code. I'm an active practicing mormon. I actually have a pretty normal upbringing stable middle-class home and I have what most people would consider success. I've made well under the six figures I've had high powered attorney jobs I've been envied by many and now I'm a law professor I see almost every personal interaction I have as a game to further effectuate my goals to get ahead to have more power.

It is immediately after this, she goes into her spiel about how ruining people makes her drool like a mental patient… or after a steak… whatever. Where is this moral code that she insists that she has? Also, does Mormonism teach that ruining people is within their doctrine? Because if not, how is she a “practicing Mormon”? Seems contradictory.

She claims that she was told she might be a sociopath, and so she sought out a diagnosis. This contradicts what she later said when she was called out for being self-diagnosed. She said that she wrote the blog, Sociopath World, then wrote her book, then she had her friend diagnose her afterward.

More inconsistencies, but I can’t find a resolution on the date issue, so we are going back to the article. I will inflict the rest of this interview onto myself, but Dr. Phil is still old school psychology, and states that sociopaths aren’t able to be self-reflective, etc. Sure, if you are only studying them, and psychopaths in prison, I can see why you would think that. However, we need to update our thinking and our procedures a bit. I will add any more detail that might come out of it later on if there is anything relevant.

While Thomas has said she 'is not a killer,' in her book described an occasion when a city worker scolded her for using an off-limits escalator, prompting her to follow him as he walked away. 

I mean, maybe a sociopath would do this. They are ‘hot’ emotionally, so perhaps getting called out for doing something that she shouldn’t have is so offensive to her sensibilities that she felt the need to cause him harm. However, I would say that this seems to be directly contrasting her claim of a moral code, as well as the fact that she isn’t in prison. If you are so willing to do harm to another person because you f*cked up? Chances are, you aren’t going to keep yourself in line, and you will do something stupid. That would be low-functioning. Let’s also keep this part in mind when we remember that she is now claiming psychopathy.

A psychopath wouldn’t care. Oh well, it was off limits, but I used it anyway. You can complain about it all you want, but the deed is done, and I got to where I wanted/needed to go. Someone whinging after the fact is something they are going to be doing to dead air. I am not bothering with any of that noise.

There was a 'metallic' taste in her mouth as Thomas fantasized about murdering the man, and only stopped trailing him when he disappeared from view.

'I'm sure I wouldn't have been able to actually kill him,' she wrote, 'but I'm also relatively certain I would have assaulted him.'

Yeah, that’s not something that happens to psychopaths. That interaction wouldn’t even register to one of us. She is describing actual rage, which is something she talks about in another video, where she claims that another psychopath called it, “gray rage”. Psychopaths cannot experience rage. Is it way too deep of an emotion. Flashes of anger? Sure, that’s doable, but rage is outside our capability.

You might think, well, this is when she was claiming sociopathy, so it stands to reason that she shifted the narrative. Yeah, except

1. She says that another psychopath is the one that coined the name.

2. She said this in a video titled, “Ask a Psychopath - Would you say you’re dangerous?”

So, her fantasy pretend version of psychopathy includes other supposed psychopaths, also capable of feeling deep and intense emotions, that coins terms like “gray rage”. Sure.

Oh, we should define this nonsense, shouldn’t we?

Gray rage- “…is most reliably triggered when somebody who doesn't have authority over you tries to assert authority over you in a particular situation and another psychopath friend says, It's when people have a false sense of their own authority and a false sense of their own personal safety, and I think that's what triggers it then you think I'm going to correct this person about their false sense of authority and safety, and make them fear for their safety and make them realize they have no authority over me. Because I will take it to the nth degree including violence in order to kind of correct them of this misapprehension.

So, gray rage, it's a very cold like that's why it's called gray, not red, not even blue or whatever just a gray rage in which it's almost as if uh like when you're gray raging you feel very not yourself very not kind of in control almost like a fugue state like this is just what's happening and I have experienced that a couple times.

Luckily when I have gray rage I have never been able to actually track down the intended victim in time to do anything and even if I did track them down what could I have done, you know, I’m five foot four, I don't think I could have hurt them very badly and, I think it is something that you quickly snap out of within maybe, you know, at least an hour you know and, often like five to ten minutes you kind of snap out of it.

I don't know why that is a pretty common trait for psychopaths to feel and I think that this is probably though why people do end up in prison uh especially it's pretty impulsive and it's pretty, pretty, kind of you're not thinking about any consequences you're almost not you don't even feel like you're making the decisions yourself. You just feel like you're kind of acting in this particular way and you know it's just like you're fulfilling an almost destiny.

Nope. Neither you nor your “psychopath friend” which I believe exist as much as I believe that a purple monkey dishwasher exists, have any idea what psychothy is. Nice try, but what kind of edgelord supreme story is that nonsense?

It's when people have a false sense of their own authority and a false sense of their own personal safety, and I think that's what triggers it then you think I'm going to correct this person about their false sense of authority and safety, and make them fear for their safety and make them realize they have no authority over me.

Good lord, the amount your head has to be up your own behind to feel this powerless in your life but pretending to be the opposite, is pretty unreal to me. If I meet someone with a superiority complex, I rarely notice because in my mind, who the hell cares what they think? I am going to do whatever I am going to do, and their opinion on that situation is neither here nor there to me. I feel like I already said this… oh yeah, the “off limits elevator” nonsense. I am guessing that is a situation that she supposedly had “gray rage”. I cannot communicate the level of eye roll this inspires for me. This is not how a psychopath thinks.

Luckily when I have gray rage I have never been able to actually track down the intended victim in time to do anything and even if I did track them down what could I have done, you know, I’m five foot four, I don't think I could have hurt them very badly and, I think it is something that you quickly snap out of within maybe, you know, at least an hour you know and, often like five to ten minutes you kind of snap out of it.

Soo… let me get this right, she, as a “psychopath” can experience such deep and abiding emotions that they stick around for at minimum, five to ten minutes, but can persist for an hour? Am I reading that correctly? I know that I am, but I can’t help but notice in her description, that she seems to waver about the time that this sticks around and how often it happens. This “gray rage” only has happened once or twice to her, but it happens every year or so. It lasts an hour, but only five to ten minutes.

Uh-huh.

I don't know why that is a pretty common trait for psychopaths to feel

It isn’t. In fact, it isn’t something that happens, ever.

and I think that this is probably, though, why people do end up in prison

Nope, psychopaths end up in prison because they are low-functioning or young, or it’s a lifestyle choice. They see something that they want and take the path of least resistence in the moment, but the most resistence in the long run. Such as seeing something that they want to possess and just taking it. Then they get arrested and go to prison.

uh especially it's pretty impulsive and it's pretty, pretty, kind of you're not thinking about any consequences you're almost not you don't even feel like you're making the decisions yourself.

I can’t help but notice her repetition of, “pretty” which, to me, looks like she is trying to create a story as she is speaking, not speaking from memory. Also, psychopaths do not disassociate which is what she is describing. There are no reality breaks, no fugue states, no disassociation, no psychosis of any kind, which appears to be what she is describing here. None of this has to do with psychopathy.

you're not thinking about any consequences

This is written in a very telling way. She writes this stating that in this state she is not thinking about consequences, and that this is different than her usual way of being. Psychopaths never think about consequences until we intentionally stop and play things out to the end and see if that end is the preferred outcome. Not thinking about consequences is default. Thinking about them is intentional action that we have to train ourselves to do. She writes this in the opposite narrative, which is contrary to psychopathy.

You just feel like you're kind of acting in this particular way and you know it's just like you're fulfilling an almost destiny.

Oh gag. Seriously? “Fulfilling a destiny”? Stick with your day job, you suck at writing fiction. That is all this is. It’s dreafully written BS meant to be arrow pointing to her proclaiming, “more badass than you are”. She sounds like a wannabe Dexter.

Let’s get back to this article.

Thomas has also described herself as a 'female psychopath,' meaning she allegedly doesn't have violent tendencies, like WHAT IS revealed in her book.

That’s not… that’s not at all what a psychopath is. What corner of your mind did you crawl into to make up such nonsense? It must be a very dark corner devoid of the light necessary for basic reading, because no one, literally no one with working brain cells thinks this is what, “psychopath” means. Just... what?

Also, and I just find this so much fun:

…meaning she allegedly doesn't have violent tendencies, like WHAT IS revealed in her book.

In other words, “I’m not a violent person. I know that I wrote in my book the opposite of what I am claiming now, but don’t worry about it. I decided that the whole concept that I wrote about in my book no longer applies to me because I needed more attention. Now, instead of claiming that I am a sociopath, I am claiming to be a psychopath, but not like a psychopath psychopath, but a psychopath that exists solely in my mind that I am insisting that everyone agree with.

Even the Daily Mail thinks that she is full of it, and yet, PsychopathyIS has decided that this is a credible person. She has never been through a diagnostic process. If she had been, she would talk about it. The fact she doesn’t, the fact she can’t describe it should tell people everything that they need to know, but if that doesn’t, the fact she has no consistent narrative should be plenty.

The article concludes, stating:

According to Psychology Today, psychopaths often have tend to fabricate stories or manipulate others.

Thomas claimed that as a 'female psychopath,' she is dominant in social ways: 'Like being Queen Bee or being emotionally manipulative and using mental games,' very different than male counterparts 'who might be physically more dominating,' she claimed.

This woman… Her words are just a perfect example of entitlement and a perverse need for attention. She isn’t a psychopath, she isn’t a sociopath, she is just someone that is very self-important and needs to be seen as special.

Psychopathy doesn’t make you special. It makes you different. You have to figure out how to operate in a world that is simply not made with your way of thinking in mind. It is a process to figure out how to navigate. It certainly isn’t a hindrance, however, don’t get me wrong, but it isn’t something that a psychopath preens in the mirror over.

Sociopathy definitely doesn’t make you special. It’s a mark of a terrible history. Pretending to be one when there are people that went through hell and managed to come out the other side alive, but permanently marred by whatever horror they survived, speaks loudly about the kind of person that choose would do so.

I am guessing that part of her shift from sociopathy to psychopathy has to do with people questioning her average middle class upbringing. She probably became aware that these topics were becoming more mainstream and the definitions more readily understood, and she didn’t qualify for a diagnosis of sociopathy.

What’s super weird to me is that she claims that she was “diagnosed” as a sociopath professionally, which, of course, she wasn’t, but she claims it. However, now she is a “psychopath” but she doesn’t claim to have been rediagnosed, she is just using the argument of, “because I say so”, and switching the results to what suits her grift. It’s pretty amazing.

Also, you don’t get diagnosed with psychopathy or sociopathy. You get diagnosed with ASPD, because, as much as I dislike it, the DSM, is what pretty much everyone uses for their labels. They may, as in my case, discuss with you the details of psychopathy or sociopathy, and tell you where you fall in those terms, but the official diagnosis is ASPD. Hey, I don’t like it either, but at least I know that’s the case, and I know that, because I actually went through the tedium of getting diagnosed.

Again, 0/10, do not recommend.

This woman is a very public example of the people that are posing as something that they aren’t. She is certainly not a psychopath, nor was she ever a sociopath. I am not here to apply a diagnosis to her. Plenty of people have decided that she is a narcissist, but let’s be fair here. I always say, leave the diagnostics to the professionals, and this case is no different.

As far as I am concerned, she is just someone that will say whatever she needs to say to be important. This is no different from influencer culture. Many people will say or do whatever they have to do to be important in the eyes of the public, because that is the only way that they are important in their own eyes when no one else is around.

Edit: All right guys, I tortured myself with more of the Dr. phil Interview, and I have to include what she said in her preinterview. This is Dr. Phil rereading what she told them prior to the show, The bracketted words are her responses:

You say ruining people, you love the way that phrase rolls around your mouth, right? You like to imagine I've ruined people or seduce someone to the point of being irreparably mine, (right) I comment on the desire to exploit my admirers or kill babies and cute animals and don't even need to laugh or smile for people to think I'm joking. I'm continually shaping my self presentation so I can control what people think of me.

The amount of inward groan this elicites is pretty extreme. It sounds like she read a sociopath wiki page and thought, “Yeah, that’s who I’ll pretend to be,” and went on with her bad self. Granted, and again, this is back when she claimed sociopathy, and had she stuck with that, I would have had nothing ill to say about her. I am not a sociopath, I have no idea what it is like to live in a sociopath’s head, so I try not to speak about their experience. If there was something to be said about it I would have left it to a sociopath to do so.

However, she is now claiming psychopathy, and the amount she cares about what people think of her, not for effect, but for ego, is not psychopathic in the slightest. I can’t even imagine caring what people think outside of the necessary curated image that is required to move through the world. There isn’t any sort of need or desire to make them, “irreparably mine”, whatever that means.

That’s it. I’m tapping. I can’t with this women or this interview. It’s a tale of two worlds. On the one hand, she wants to clear up some of the myths surrounding sociopathy. On the other she is ducking her head and running full tilt into those very same myths. She needs for the word “sociopath” to mean that she’s terrible and dangerous, but she also needs to soften it to get the attention that she desires.

I’m out. If you guys can suffer through it, be my guest, but I would rather play Final Fantasy 16 than give this woman one more second of my time. Honestly, would you rather pay attention to this:

or this:

Yeah, me too.

The Author of 'Confessions of a Sociopath' Might Be This Law Professor