On (Un)Realistic Representation of Psychopaths in Movies, and Why My Selection Might Surprise You. Part 5.

This is the last part of my (admittedly very long) article about the types of psychopaths shown in the movies, and how their portrayal deviates from reality. Because Hollywood filmmakers rarely bother consulting specialists or DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and write their psychopathic anti-heroes and villains how it suits them, they tend to make tons of mistakes, and so their portrayal of most mental disorders tends to be a bit messy and inconsistent at best.

And so I made a list of various TV and film characters that are generally thougt to be psychopathic, but most of the times, they suffer from other disorders. I also included two clearly psychopathic and well-known characters (one TV and one film character), so that you could get a better picture of how a psychopath differentiates from someone suffering from other disorder, e.g. Borderline personality disorder and Narcissistic personality disorder (there are more examples, of course). For abbreviation, I will use the term "PD" for "Personality Disorder".

1) PSYCHOPATH / ANTISOCIAL PD: Frank Underwood (House of Cards)

 

Frank is a manipulative kind of a psychopath. Why, he was even predisposed to use his cunning more than his muscles: he is highly intelligent, well-educated, likes to be in control of things, seeks power for its own sake, and has a supporting wife who matches him in his manipulativeness and coldheartedness. He is the typical example of a psychopathic "CEO" (a so-to-speak CEO) that you can meet in the real world. He can switch on and off his charm, knows where he´s heading, and does not have enough conscience to be bothered with destroying someone´s life or career.  

P.S.: According to the newest research, 1 in 5 bosses is a psychopath. Remember me telling you that a CEO is the most popular job among them? Well, chances are you have already worked for one.

 

 

2) PSYCHOPATH / ANTISOCIAL PD: Bill (Kill Bill)

 

Oh, come on, this was pretty much obvious! Bill is the classic / idiopathic kind of a psychopath. Albeit seeming much warmer than Frank Underwood, Bill is capable of unspeakable acts of physical and emotional brutality, and he does not even flinches his eye. He rationalizes his killings, emotionally distancing himself from them, and he is so good at manipulation that he would make you believe that what he did to you was for your own good. However, you would probably forgive him at first, since he is so charming and knows how to play the relationships game. And he is surprisingly a great father.

P.S.: Remember that he woud still kill you at the second glance. You would have to stay constantly alert around him.

 

3) PSYCHOPATH / SCHIZOID PD: Dexter Morgan (Dexter)

 

This TV series significantly contributed in the promotion of the more realistic-looking psychopath. Kudos to its writers for that. However, Dexter as a character cannot be taken for a completely accurate portrayal of what a psychopath makes. The most significant problem lies in Dexter´s relation to the world, and his withdrawal from human emotions. He is too much of a loner for his own kind, very apathetic, does not mind not having any kind of intimacy for long periods of life, and most importantly, he does not seem to understand how human emotions work at all. However, this is how a typical schizoid looks like, not a psychopath. Psychopaths have a great cognitive empathy (they understand human mind and emotions), they just mostly or completely lack the emotional one (relating to people). In this respect, Dexter seems more like an alien in the human world. 

P.S.: I get it, they wanted to exaggerate this quality in him in order to make him look so. But it does not measn that he is not a psychopath. Schizoid PD would probably be just a comorbidity to his ASPD.

 

 

4) BORDERLINE PD: Alex Forrest (Fatal Attraction)

 

Although Alex was apparently written to look like an obsessive psychopathic girlfriend, she is actually an obsessive girlfriend suffering from Borderline PD. Mind you, people with BPD are usually very sweet and rarely this violent, but in other respects, they mostly posess all the traits and behaviors that Alex exhibits during the course of the film. A sentence typical for the borderlines would probably sound like: "I love to hate you, and if you leave me, I´m gonna kill myself. So, don´t." Alex is a depressed emotional blackmailer with violent swing moods and anger problems. She is very unstable in her views on life, relationships and even her self-image, uncertain about her goals apart from one: securing the relationship of her lover for herself. That does not mean that she is bad. She just violently oscillates between a complete idolization and dehumanization of her lover.

P.S.: A typical psychopath would not do that; they would just leave you after they used you with no further explanation, not even trying to make you stay, unless there was something else they wanted from you.

 

 

5) SOCIOPATH / ANTISOCIAL PD: Vincent (Collateral)

 

Vincent (which you can bet is not even his real name, as he is a retired secret agent turned hitman and wants to stay incognito) is a classical case of a person who, after being severely abused by alcoholic father and being raised up in foster homes, turned into a sociopath. He was not born this way like a psychopath would; he was made through conditioning. He is intelligent, well-educated and cultured (likes jazz and classical music in a great detail), and completely remorseless at most times. Like Bill, he rationalizes his bad deeds in order not to feel like a villain. He is a lone wolf who came to town to do his "thing", and no one can stop him from doing so. Not even an empathetic taxi driver who gives him a valuable lesson at the end of the movie.

P.S.: Contrary to a popular belief, sociopaths can feel guilt and remorse like normal people, they just don´t feel it at all times. Their emotionality is blunted, but otherwise more or less intact (compared to psychopaths).

 

 

6) SOCIOPATH / ANTISOCIAL PD: Amy Dunne (Gone Girl)

 

Seemingly angelic, but really cunning, manipulative, and dangerous. She is capable of staging her own abduction and murder, and framing her husband. All that because she is has ongoing marital problems with him, and is disgusted with life by his side. She is a really good planner.

 

 

7) NARCISSISTIC PD: Thranduil Oropherion (The Hobbit)

 

If looks could kill, king Thranduil would definitely win the first prize. He´s bringing sexy back. He looks smashing, he is educated, smart... and he knows it. However, he is also cunning, ruthless, largely remorseless, lacks empathy, and is emotionally colder that a freezer. He has an inflated sense of his Selbst, and like all narcissists, he typicall uses the so-called gaslighting to belittle his opponents (this means he manipullates someone into questioning their own sanity; Thranduil does that when he meets one of the dwarf lords on the batlefield: "He´s clearly mad - like his cousin!"). He is a distant father to his son Legolas whom he obviously loves, but he does not know how to express his love for him. He goes for what he wants without shame, looking down on his servants and other races - like e.g. dwarves, which he apparently considers untermensch. After all, elves are immortal, therefore they are the best... no, WAIT, he is the best.

The reason I blog about psychology, and especially about sociopathy / psychopathy.

On this blog, I speak a lot about Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which includes both psychopathy and sociopathy, both of which are slightly different from each other but some specialist do not differentiate between them (most do, though). I am very interested in this Cluster B disorder, mostly due to personal reasons, which is why I write about it a lot.

However, before I say anything more specific, let me tell you that I was NOT diagnosed with Antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy, which falls under that cathegory. My official diagnosis is Asperger´s syndrome with comorbid OCD. However, I lied to get the Asperger´s diagnosis in order to obtain a throughout assessment of my psyche, by which I wanted to prove myself that I was not really "crazy" (by crazy, I meant e.g. having something like schizophrenia or a similar affective illness).

I knew I did not have it but I was so scared that I simply needed reassurance, to see it written on a paper, with a stamp on it. It is not that I did not think that I could not have Asperger´s, as a matter of fact, I did. But some things in it just were not right, and in these specific cases, I lied in order to appear wholly autistic (if you know how I mean it). I am sure that I had something like that as a kid, and that was why I based my guess or tip on it, which was why I finally went to see a professional to confirm that diagnosis for me. However, you cannot be healed from such a disorder, as it is innate. And so I might have Asperger´s and it got significantly better over the years, or I simply suffer from sometging else that has similar symptoms.

I´ve been searching for what was wrong with me for more than 15 years, and I could never put my finger on it. I simply wanted a label to identify the source of my problem, to get healed from it or at least start treating it, and finally be in peace. Because when you know what is wrong with you, you can easily work with it. And the diagnosis helped me to find that ever-evading peace of mind. 

Right now, even if I was re-diagnosed or found out I had something different (which I´ve suspected for years), I would not care that much, because after such a long time (it has really been 15+ years, lads), when I´ve read and analyzed every possible psychiatric book to identify the source of my problems, I have learned how to recognize most mental illnesses or disorders from one another, and so I know which I do and don´t have. I can tell you for sure that I verifiably do have OCD.

However, and this is when it starts getting interesting. I was in my teens when I saw the movie Girl, Interrupted (1999) with Winona Ryder, Angelina Jolie, Clea DuVall and Whoopi Goldberg. It was based on the life story of a young girl, now a famous writer Susanna Kaysen (played by Ryder), who - after she had tried to kill herself in a bout of depression - got in a mental institution and was later diagnosed with Borderline personality disorder. Because I saw some similarity between the character and my actions at that time - apart from the suicidal tendentions - the movie prompted me to dive into psychiatry and research all personality disorders in order to find out what I had.

In the end, after careful reconsidering of what I appeared to have (remember that I gained a much clearer perspective of my actions and thinking over the years), I finally ended up with a few disorders, namely Borderline personality disorder, Narcissistic personality disorder, Antisocial personality disorder, Avoidant personality disorder, and OCD. That does not mean that I am diagnosable with either of these "illnesses" (except from OCD, which I verifiably suffer from), as I only have some traits of each, but the percentage is not negligible, and so I would be diagnosable with the so-called generalized personality disorder, which is a label you get from the specialists when they don´t know where to put you, but know you definitely are somewhere on the "disorder spectrum", so to speak.

Most of all, I am a narcissist, but I am getting better, as the world keeps on slapping me and putting me back in my place - which I realize I need for my improvement, and so I am grateful for it, and not angry like I used to be - and so I am generally getting better. I am also very moody and sometimes depressive, which would speak for the Borderline PD, but at the same time, I learned how not to be clingy, I don´t have suicidal tendencies, and I am definitely not pathologically unsure of who I am as a person.

However, I have recently came back to dive more into the ASPD, as I realized that my whole problem lies somewhere else: I don´t connect with other people. It´s not that I don´t want to, as least not always, but I simply don´t. I have almost no emotional empathy. The character of Sherlock Holmes used to say that if there are several intricate evidences and one simple, we should always choose the simple one because that is our answer. And that very well might be the whole truth, and my greatest problem, after all. The bloody empathy...

... which will be my next article here. That is, unless I choose to write about something lighter first.

When you realize you (might) have the traits of a psychopath.

Since my early childhood, I have known I was different from other people. Of course there are nuts who will always be weirder than me (or you), which is kind of comforting. When I was young, however, there were not many youngsters who would play the role of a "strange kid" more convincingly.

I was extremely neurotic and absolutely hated being with other children. They just seemed too stupid, close-minded, and cruel to me. I remember standing in the middle of a playground, watching them from distance, longing to be accepted but at the same time absolutely hating the idea of even having to share the same space with them. Not because I thought I was better than them, and it definitely was not some kind of a territorial play. They just were not kind enough for me to really like them. I was severely bullied from the tender age of three or four. I don´t know why, and I bet my bullies would not remember it also. In fact, they don´t remember almost anything from that time, which seems kinda funny to me, as my own experience with them is seared in my memory forever. I was just different, and the other kids smelled it, just like dogs smell fear. And that was enough reason to beat me up. As a consequence, I developed a strong distrust towards other people and therefore society, which played a crucial part in the forming of my personality. It showed very soon; the kindergarten nurses were calling my mother on a daily basis to take me out. She is not a child fit for kindergarten, they claimed.

But my distrust towards anything alien was not the only thing that formed me. My father was, in the best and worst ways, the most important influence. Being a pathological narcissist with IQ 154, great cold-reading skills, a law degree from a prestigious school and limited empathy, he always prompted me and my sister to do our best. He would try our knowledge of history and geography, and if we didn´t know the answer, we were mocked for being stupid. We were rarely praised for our accomplishments; in fact, we were nothing special. After all, he managed to do the same AND then go to sports classes when he was just eight. Plus, he read up to 30 books per month, but a quality ones - Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Twain. What kind of a "pervert" reads The Lord of the Rings (he said)?

I remember feeling constantly heartbroken. I wanted to prove to my father that I was a worthy daughter (hello, Loki). As you expect, it was not working that much. It wouldn´t be fair to say that me and my sister were not praised or shown love at all, but it was not happening very often. I´d say that my father was - and still is - a person who does not know how to show love. And so I studied to show my intellectual prowess in order to gain my father´s love.

I was not a talented sportswoman like my sister (who was naturally smart but didn´t care about getting good grades at all), and so I went the opposite way. With the exception of science (which I was failing miserably), I was getting mostly As and Bs. Because I was extremely shy and couldn´t connect with others, I naturally had no friends, and so I spent most of my time with my nose in books. Soon I acquired a lot more general knowledge than my classmates; not because I was smarter (I was not) but because I read. This caused me to develop a very high opinion of my skills; so great it was that I soon started showing signs of narcissism. And no empathy.

I did not see it, of course. I felt justified in my contempt, thinking that most people were just too ignorant and below my intellectual level. And I sure let them know. I especially showed that to those kids who had been mean to me when I was younger. However, there were some that did not deserve it. I had a classmate who was from an extremely poor family; their father left the family when the kids were young, and the mother was an alcoholic prostitute. None of the kids were doing well at school, but especially the girl I was going to school with. She even had nothing to eat. One day, we were supposed to write each other what we thought of them. With my brutal honesty, I wrote her that I hoped she wouldn´t end up like her mother. She cried a lot (understandably), and all the other girls - who were otherwise very contemptuous of her, too - gave me a cold shoulder (justifiably). I would be lying to you that I am not ashamed of my former behavior. I mean, mentally. But otherwise, in my heart, I don´t care, and I understand it´s wrong. I know that the girl (who is now living a life which is very similar to her mother´s) has never forgiven me for it. I don´t blame her.

When I was a kid, I sometimes did terrible things. I mean, I was a very nice and proper kid most of the time. But then I suddenly broke into rage (extremely short-lived but powerful), and I got vicious. I once read a scientific article about the lizards´ ability to regenerate their bodies, especially tails. I got to go out with other kids from time to time (read: they were willing to take me with them), but on this very day, when we were climbing into an abandoned and moss-infested swimming pool, I found a lizard. I excitedly chased it, rephrasing the contents of the article for the other kids, and then I lifted the lizard up and cut off its tale. It was a buzz. I felt victorious, but felt no guilt over it, claiming that the animal´s tail would grow back in a few days. Other kids started calling me names, asking why I did that, and I could not answer. Or I tortured our cat a few times by... I cannot even write this right now. I feel really guilty and terrible now, and I mean it. I don´t know what happened to me, but THANK GOD, I never hurt an animal again. The cat lived, by the way. Again, thank God. To be honest, now I am the one who promotes the rights of animals, and when I see someone mistreating their furry friend, I give them a hardcore scolding. It´s interesting, though, that I only feel guilty for mistreating the animals; not for mistreating the schoolmate.

While I have not repeated what I did to the animals anymore, I certainly don´t care that much about humans. I can´t help it. I imagine that most people would not understand this concept of not caring and not hating at the same time, as they are not wired that way. Most people, when they see other people hurting, do care. Even those who say that they don´t, they still do. Don´t get me wrong. I do, too. But sometimes, I don´t, and I can´t make myself care because I don´t feel anything about the given thing. I don´t feel good or bad when thinking about the thing, whatever that thing may be. I help people because it´s a socially expected norm and it´s an obligation, and I even like to see other people happy, but I usually don´t feel it WHEN they are happy. I only see it. When I feel it, it feels great - it is like being emotionally connected. That is a special feeling for me.

I am generally a good girl, and so I try to monitor my behavior. Mind you, it´s hard, when you have a low empathy. That alone creates the disconnection. I have IQ 124 but my EQ is much lower. I scored 25 points on the official test (5 points below the standard). And so when I feel someone deserves it - like a bully, for example - I don´t feel guilty, or second-guess my decision. But I do have a conscience. That is why I don´t think I am a real psychopath. I certainly am on the spectrum, since I have some of the traits. But I also show the symptoms of autism, Borderline PD, Narcissistic PD, and maybe even Avoidant PD. I was diagnosed with OCD. That does not sound like a prototypical psychopath, does it? They are not supposed to feel scared; they have a smaller amygdala. But I have not seen my brain scan.

Random wisdom in pictures (on how to make your life simpler)

... because it would be a shame not to post them. I found those on the internet, and I found them to be especially motivating, as they promote the kind of tough love that somebody like McGonagall would give you. Yes, I love Harry Potter ;-) Don´t you worry, guys. You will have your share of my Harry Potter silliness.

Today, I will share 5 messages with you. They all talk about the same thing: how to make your life simpler, therefore less complicated and more enjoyable. Not only for you but also for the people around you. Believe me, these things really do work.

5 tips on how to simplify your life:

1. Stop complaining. 

No, seriously. If you don´t like something, remove it from your life, or try to replace it with something better. I am not talking only about material things but about relationships as well. Or your pestering habits. I too have this annoying habit, but I realized that merely talking about things that bother me won´t change anything. And so I started using positive affirmations. I used them even when I tried to get rid of my thyroid problems. Doctors told me that I would never get better. And guess what: I used carefully chosen affirmations and they worked. I am healthy again.

2. Do not wallow in self-pity.

At least not more than it´s necessary. Yes, you messed up something, and you might even very well deserve to feel bad, especially if you hurt someone. But everything ends, good or bad, and so should your emotional punishment. Being ashamed for too long does not really help you or make you a better person. Plus, people are definitely going to avoid you if you are too negative. Get up and start living again, or actively try to improve your situation.

3. Do it, not just talk about it.

If you at least try to do what you are afraid of, you will eventually get there. It does not matter that you are slow, it only matters that you move. Because even if you were the slowest person around, you would still end up in a better position than someone who never even tried to do anything.

4. If you can´t get it out of your head, by all means do it.

It might be a good omen or sign from God that you are on the right track. Be it the job you always wanted to do but never had the courage, or the guy or girl you can´t stop thinking about. If you do it and it does not work for you, you will be content knowing that you at least tried. Nothing is worse than regrets.

5. You´re not "real", you are an "asshole".

There´s a big difference between being assertive and being purpotedly rude. The fact that you are capable of telling somebody what you think of them does not necessarily make you "stronger". Do you know how to tell if you were assertive or just a jerk? Try to recall your feelings when you were telling the other person the truth. If you know you were "bitchy", "prickly", or "entitled", you were probably just an ass.

On (Un)Realistic Representation of Psychopaths in Movies, and Why My Selection Might Surprise You. Part 4.

Here is my list of other realistically renditioned psychopaths in the US movies. It is not ranked, because then I woud have to show you ALL good portrayals of psychopaths in order to be fair, and I ain´t got time and space for this. Plus, I would not want to bother myself with it. Or you. So, here it is. I will give you males and females to promote gender equality. ;-)

 

Anton Chigurh (No Country For Old Men) 

Probably the most frightening psychopath on screen, absolutely ridden of humanity. These violent types are actually scarcer than you think among the psychopathic folk but they sure know how to make an entrance and a lasting impression.

 

Marquise de Merteuil (Dangerous Liaisons)

I chose this picture because her dress beautifully merges with the color and the design of the sofa. This noble woman keeps on changing her behavior like a true chameleon. She is actually much more dangerous than her ex and partner in crime, Vicomte de Valmont, as he lives out in the open and is honest about his atrocities, while she wears a mask of a modest widow, and no one knows of her true predatory nature.

 

Professor James Moriarty (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows)

Extremely manipulative, sadistic, with an IQ of a genius, and a true criminal mastermind who is hiding behind the mask of a respectable mathematics professor. He is like a spider sitting on his giant web and spinning the fate of hundreds, perhaps even thousands of men. The best thing about his organization? His henchmen don´t even know their own boss. He is anonymous to nearly all of them with the exception of Colonel Sebastian Moran, his right hand, and a few chosen ones. He has got henchmen who operate henchmen who operate henchmen. Only Moriarty knows what´s really going on.

 

Catherine Trammell (Basic Instinct)

A murderous bisexual writer who is all sex, drugs and rock´n´roll. A bored millionaire with a penchant for sadistic killing. She does it for the sport. And by it, I mean both sex and the murders. Her interrogation scene is legendary.

 

Dave Harken (Horrible Bosses)

A perfect example of a narcissistic and manipulative psychopath in the position of a CEO. He does not even try to hide his true nature, or the fact that he does not give a f*ck about your wants or needs (e.g. when you want to visit your gam gam on her death bed). He does not believe in promotion either. He is tough, demanding and self-serving, and willing to use any means to achieve his ends.

 

Miranda Priestly (The Devil Wears Prada)

This woman will beat you either with her encyclopedic knowledge of fashion history or with her impossible demands. Where is the paper she had in her hand yesterday morning? Where is her stirring-hot Starbucks, are you dead or something? How come you cannot fetch the unpublished Harry Potter manuscript for her? Oh, did she hurt your feelings? How… touching. Meanwhile, Emily (who cares it´s not your name), you can hang her expensive coat in the wardrobe, and hope you don´t get fired like the last three secretaries.

On (Un)Realistic Representation of Psychopaths in Movies, and Why My Selection Might Surprise You. Part 3.

OK, so I am finally here and posting two days later. I promised to give you some examples of a well-portrayed psychopathic characters in movies. I kept it to the American production because characters from those movies are usually well-known or at least recognizable to the main public. This is very important for both me and you, my readers, as you will know what I am talking about without having to google everything. So, let´s cut to the chase and start with the character that will surprise you the most on this list:

The Chief Deputy Marshall SAMUEL GERARD from the blockbuster The Fugitive, played by Tommy Lee Jones.

“Alright, listen up, people. Our fugitive has been on the run for ninety minutes. Average foot speed over uneven ground barring injuries is 4 miles-per-hour. That gives us a radius of six miles. What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive’s name is Dr. Richard Kimble. Go get him.”

From the first moment we see him arrive on the scene of the train accident, we know this is not a guy to mess with. In fact, he serves as the movie´s Big Bad (pardon my “Buffy” expression) until we get to know the real villain of the story, Dr. Charles Nichols (by the way, the other psychopath in this movie). But I am jumping too forward in the story right now.

 

It´s obvious that Gerard is not only good, but great at what he´s doing. He is a no-shit character: ambitious, stern and very demanding - not only from himself but other people as well. He has high standards and refuses to compromise (or bargain, literally). That is why he is so effective. Yes, that´s the word. Gerard does not behave like a human; he is a bulldog who just got a hold of a juicy bone, a well-tuned machine. It´s because he is a hardened, experienced cop, you´ll say. Well, I think that is not the right reason. In my humble opinion, he is so effective due to his zero empathy.

Although it´s obvious that he has some bond with his colleagues, especially Cosmo Renfro (played by Joe Pantoliano), when you watch the interactions of the team, you can easily read from their faces that working with the loud, mercurial, narcissistic, ever-barking Gerard must be exhausting for them sometimes. He does not give orders, he yells. When his demands are not immediately fulfilled, he snaps and yells even more. If you don´t do your work to your best credit (read: you don´t fulfill your purpose in the game), you are removed from the game.

 

Or you can be sure he at least thinks you are an incompetent idiot, and shows you no mercy - like in the case of the poor greenhorn Newman, who who was taken hostage (out of his own inexperience) by an escaped and extremely dangerous convict. Gerard acts effectively, with little emotion, and shoots the prisoner dead. Newman, whose hearing got nearly damaged by Gerard´s swift gunshot, later blames Gerard for his lack of empathy, claiming that he should have bargained with the convict. Gerard is completely unaffected by this speech, asking his trainee impassionately whether he really cannot hear with the ear. He then tries Newman´s hearing by whispering: “I don´t bargain.”

Which is exactly the reason why Gerard, like many real-life psychopaths, excels in his job: with no empathy, it is easy to navigate through a hard work and make tough decisions. This incident with Newman, that was not just a mere boss lecturing his employee or explaining the decision he had had to make when killing the convict. He did not care about the convict, or even Newman and his feelings; he only cared about Newman being an efficient tool of justice (notice my use of the word “tool” here), someone who would execute the rights of a US Marshall with the same no-shit attitude that he had. He did not even have anything against the dead man or his trainee. He did not love the, he did not hate them. As he later repeated, he did not care at all.

Despite him being respected by his subordinates for his deduction, investigating and “man-hunting” skills (and actually having one or two friends within the squad), Gerard is still known for arrogant and condescending behavior towards them, which also points to his narcissism and irritability. While it´s not surprising that he uses his superior position to belittle Newman, the youngest member of the team…

 … a senior member of the team, Henry, also has a taste of his boss´ nasty jabs:

Even his friend Cosmo experiences Gerard´s moods ever so often, but unlike others, he has the guts to stand for himself, which is probably why Gerard kind of respects him.

But empathy is not the only thing Gerard is missing; he doesn´t have any conscience either. This is demonstrated in the infamous tunnel chase scene, in which he finally manages to corner Dr. Richard Kimble. Gerard only knows that Kimble is a convicted murderer of his wife who plead innocent during his unsuccessful trial, claiming that his wife was killed by a one-armed man. Gerard is not bothered about checking the facts in the slightest; he just wants to bring “his man” back. When the desperate Kimble points a gun at Gerard, repeating that he did not kill his wife, Gerard (in)famously retorts:

Now a little trivia: this quote was not even in the original script. Tommy Lee Jones, who portrayed Gerard on screen, was just supposed to look scared and say nothing. But he thought that saying that he did not cared was exactly what Gerard would have said, so he improvised.

Many people say that his retort was cruel, and they were bothered by it. How can anyone not care? Well, this scene was supposed to bother you. Normal people care about others, at least a little. They just do. They even care when they say they don´t (if they had not cared, they would not have gotten angry). Gerard said he did not care without any emotion because he truly did not feel anything. He just wanted to bring "his man" (meaning Kimble) back, and that was it. There´s only one human "subtype" that thinks like this, with no emotions involved. It´s a psychopath. I can totally see you disagree now: "But he does not kill people and is not evil!" Now, are you SURE? His job gives him a perfect opportunity to do BOTH and be justified in it. Evil is a point of view. What is evil to one is justice to another.

There are several points that actually prove my theory of him being a psychopath right. He has a powerful charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, gets bored when nothing´s happenening and angry when he feels people don´t do what he wants, he has no remorse or sense of guilt, and he has the sensitivity of a polar bear. He can be also quite cunning, as proven by this scene (very clever, Samuel):

And have you observed that Gerard always stays cold and unfazed in dangerous situations? This is what psychopaths usually do. It is because their limbic system is differently wired and their amygdala is about 16 percent smaller than in neurotypical people. When I watch Tommy Lee Jones play this character, this is the thing I notice about him first. He just reacts differently from the rest of his team. They are emotional, he is so... cold and rational, at best. 

So, whaddya think? Do you think that I might be right about him?

On (Un)Realistic Representation of Psychopaths in Movies, and Why My Selection Might Surprise You. Part 2.

Last time, I promised you to start where I ended. The question was, is there any difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? The answer is… nobody knows, really. But the scientists investigating the Antisocial Personality Disorder mostly agree with this simple distinction: psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made.

 

The difference between psychopaths and sociopaths

PSYCHOPATHS are born with a lack or nerve connection in the frontal lobe of their brains (the part of the brain behind your eyes and forehead), are more organized, manipulative and good at planning, therefore more dangerous. They have no empathy and conscience because their brain was not properly developed in the right parts. So yeah, it´s basically a disability. However, according to the very definition of this word, a disorder can be only taken for a disability if it arouses sympathy in other people. But psychopaths are not mentally retarded, as their intellect and cognitive functions (the way a person understands the world) are intact. In fact, psychopaths are more in touch with reality than neurotypicals, and because of that, they find it easy to understand the needs of average people. And because they have no conscience, the next logical step for them is to exploit others to get what they want.

SOCIOPATHS are mostly taken for Psychopaths Lite. They are either born nerotypical (read: normal) or “slightly cracked”, and their disorder starts developing when they are subjected to some form of violence in their childhood, or negative parental influence. While most neurotypicals react to this experience with shrinking to themselves and becoming depressed or even self-harming (while still trustin other people), sociopaths react in a completely different way. They start seeing all people, regardless their attitude, as potential enemies. As a result, they act according to the old dog-eat-dog scheme, as they believe they must be out there to get others before the others get them. But their empathy or conscience are either almost intact or only slightly skewed, not completely missing. Less organized and guarded than psychopaths, they are capable of feeling deeper emotion, and might be prone to bouts of anger and violence when their needs or expectations are not met.

And now, when we are finished with the separation of the two conditions, we can move to what psychopaths (I will cut it just to them now, it saves space and time) are and what they are not.

 

What psychopaths are?

Manipulative. They know what makes people tick, as they are keen observers of human behavior. However, they will only be interested in you in terms of what you can offer to them. You are a mean to their ends. They will be charming around you to get what they want, but once you are not useful, they will dispose of you.

Good planners. They are masters of a long-time planning, and they can wait for the right opportunity for months or even years. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Don´t try to outsmart them, though. It is likely that you might not come out of the match as a winner. Just move on as fast as possible.

Pathological liars. Not only they lie to get what they want when the game is “on”, they lie basically every day. The everyday lies might not be told with an malevolent purpose; the psychopath just might the need to appear more interesting to their audience because they feel lonely, or because they want to draw people in with their (somewhat glib) charm. They are usually great story-tellers, and so people suspect little to nothing.

Without empathy or conscience. They do know what they are doing, they just don´t care. Not in the typical neurotypical, passive-agressive “don´t care” way (which women tend to use when they are angry with their spouses, aka the good ´ol “I´m FINE!”). Psychopaths truly DON´T CARE. They don´t think about you in a bad or good way. They don´t hate you, unless they think you have spoiled their plans. They really don´t care.

 

What psychopaths aren´t?

Out of reality. In movies, you see psychopaths dancing around wildly, blowing up buildings, rolling their eyes, sticking out tongues or use some “cool” crazy catchphrases to prove how mad they are. In reality, they usually wear carefully-constructed masks. Psychopathy as a condition EXCLUDES any form of insanity, and psychopaths themselves are as in touch with reality and grounded as possible (in fact, they are extremely materialistic, mostly going after the most basic “goods” in life, e.g. sex, money or power). They need to stay “focused” because like other predators, they wait for the right time to attack, usually (like e.g. lions) going after the weakest link of the society or company. Strucking the highest-ranking member of a society is dangerous and needs to be carefully planned, and psychopaths are too lazy to go for it, unless they feel they have no other choice.

Necessarily egotistical. Yes, they tend to possess the grandiose sense of self-worth, and it indeed is higher than in most people, but most of the time, they are still not as egotistical as narcisists. While sociopaths are aware of their egoism, emotions and thoughts, narcissists usually aren´t. Both of them are sensitive to criticism, but psychopaths tend not to care that much. If you cross a psychopath, the revenge will be secret, and they will never reveal themselves as the attacker because they need to preserve their mask of goodness. Narcissists, on the other hand, tend to do their revenge out in the open, so that everybody could see it, and you would be publically humiliated.

Emotionless. Here´s the deal: psychopaths really do feel emotions that are somewhat dulled. That is true. However, it´s not true that they have NO emotions. They do. They have all the emotions that neurotypical people do, but unlike normal people, they can “separate” themselves from them when they do something bad. This is not a mere psychological concept or a wild guess; it was scientifically proven by PET scans made by neurologists.

P.S.: In my very humble opinion (it is just my opinion and I am not forcing it to anyone, as it might be completely wrong), their having no deep emotions is the real cause for their pathological sense of BOREDOM. They are bored all the time because they don´t have a rich inner life, which causes a hidden depression (they don´t know of), which in turn leads them to seek thrill in order to “feel alive”.

And now, when we are finished with the explanation of what a psychopath is and what it isn´t, I will give you a few movie characters that are clearly psychopathic, but most neurotypicals don´t see them as such, as they stand on the side of good. We will start with Samuel I-Don´t-Care Gerard from The Fugitive. See (the upcoming) Part 3.

On (Un)Realistic Representation of Psychopaths in Movies, and Why My Selection Might Surprise You. Part 1.

As a person who has always been interested in psychology (albeit as an amateur) and who has always been curious about the way things work, I have always been very dissatisfied with the way people with mental disorders have been depicted in movies. Yes, there have been some positive examples in the recent past, but most of the time, as Susanna Kaysen´s boyfriend put it in Girl, Interrupted, people with mental illnesses or disorders which you see on the screen “[eat] grapes off the wallpaper. They are crazy.”

This is more than obvious in the case of psychopathic characters. Most depictions of psychopaths and sociopaths (´cause they are not the same thing) in Hollywood are completely irrelevant. The audience sees a guy sticking his tongue out of his mouth who clicks his tongue and muses about his love for stewed brains, fava beans and nice Chianti, and they immediately think: “He´s a psychopath.” You just know he is. Because that is why most movies and TV series portray pychopaths. Well, someone who is so out of touch with his human side or even reality couldn´t be anything else than a psychopath, right?

Psychopaths tend to be portrayd as frightening, fiendishly clever, and with a violent streak. Most of them suffer from severe mood swings, being completely out of their minds. They blab something about mind control and world dominance, with no real motive behind their words. And while some of the characteristics might be completely true for real psychopaths, others just don´t ring a bell, as they are symptoms of other disorders or even illnesses.

So, let me tell you the difference between film and reality, which film characters are true psychopaths (and I might even shock you a few times) and which are just poseurs (out of the ignorance or laziness of the Hollywood screenwriters). Film as a medium has a major influence on the general public and is capable of forming (or even changing) their opinion(s). It tells you what is right and how to think, sending out misinformation on how a true psychopath looks like. As a result, it is too easy for real-life psychopaths to slip through the general public´s fingers, as they rely on the fact that people will recognize the signs of a psychopath in other, obviously unstable people.

 

Not all psychopaths are serial killers.

First of all, don´t believe everything that Hollywood tells you about psychopaths. In the real life, most of them of not serial killers. Not that there is not a good number of low-functioning psychopaths in the US prisons - according to neuroscientists, the estimated number is 15% to 25%. Believe it or not, most of the mid- or high-functioning sociopaths reside at the top of the social hierarchy. According to author Eric Barker, the most common position for a psychopath is a CEO (like Kevin Spacey´s character in the first installment of Horrible Bosses).

Anyway, here´s the whole list of top 10 jobs with the greatest number of psychopaths:

1. CEO     2. Lawyer     3. Media (Television/Radio)    4. Salesperson  

5. Surgeon     6. Journalist    7. Police officer    

 8. Clergy person    9. Chef     10. Civil servant

 Makes sense, right? But so far, you´ve hardly learned anything interesting. So before I launch one of the “shockers”, revealing a character that most people don´t even think of as pychopathic (after all, he is part of the law enforcement and hunting criminals! And no, it is not Dexter Morgan), I will tell you what is the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, and also… 

How a psychopath really looks like (in terms of their psychological make-up).

According to the (in)famous Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which was originally made exclusively for incarcerated folks, there are two main Factors which make a psychopath, and these Factors contain a subgroup of symptoms that are common for most people with the Antisocial Personality Disorder (which is a broad term for everything psychopathic and sociopathic). It has 20, sometimes 21 points alltogether (depends on interpretation).
 
Factor 1 contains the most important symptoms which have to do everything with the way a psychopath thinks, feels and relates to the world. Factor 2 contains less important symptoms, and shows how the given -path behaves. The general idea is: if you have more Factor 1 symptoms, or score most of the points in both factors, you are likely to be a psychopath. If you score mostly on the Factor 2 symptoms, you are a sociopath. It does not always work that way, but mostly does.

The “Factor 1″ symptoms of the Checklist include:
1 Glibness/superficial charm
2 Grandiose sense of self-worth
3 Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
4 Pathological lying
5 Cunning/manipulative
6 Lack of remorse or guilt
7 Shallow affect [i.e. superficial experience and expression of emotions]
8 Callous/lack of empathy

The “Factor 2″ symptoms of the Checklist include:
9 Parasitic lifestyle
10 Poor behavioural controls
11 Promiscuous sexual behaviour
12 Early behaviour problems
13 Lack of realistic long-term goals
14 Impulsivity
15 Irresponsibility
16 Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
17 Many short term marital relationships
18 Juvenile delinquency
19 Revocation of conditional release
20 Criminal versatility

I am running out of space, and so I will divide this article into four parts. This was obviously the first one ;-) I´ll be happy if you comment, whether you liked it or not. Even negative reactions count.

Just a few words...

Hello there, and welcome to my blog!

I used to blog here for more than two years, but since it was a university blog we had to share with our professor, I decided to get rid of it, completely change my identity and not even try to reveal it (only on special occasions). I am really happy that no one knows me here, as I am about to reveal some very personal stuff here, albeit only from time to time, and I don´t want any of my classmates become privy or use the content against me. It is just a precaution, but a very important one.

Here´s why: I am going to talk about psychology, and I will start with (a wannabe) psychopathology. I have never studied it at school but the topic was always close to my heart, and so I naturally wanted to learn as much as possible. My other theme might be self-improvement, and so you can expect some writing about positive affirmations, the law of attraction, and most possibly, tons of pictures with wise quotes I found interesting and picked up all over the internet.

I might also want to share some of my art, as I am a hobbyist painter. Unlike psychology, I actually studied painting at school, so there is at least something I can officially take credit for, even though I am quite a mediocre painter (not bad, though).

As for the psychological stuff, I have three good reasons to be confident in my judgement:
a) I am pretty narcissistic;
b) I have a good reasoning;  
c) I have really good observation and deduction skills, I know people well and I have quite an insight into their thinking (which I inherited from my father, as they are family "traits", and I further developed them in my early adulthood while trying to improve my behavior). I constantly overanalyze everything.

I tried to help myself, and in search for the right diagnosis (which was, judging from my today´s point of view, quite funny), I read everything I could lay my hands on. And because I am not a trained expert but a layperson, I always tried to really understand the (sometimes complicated) stuff I was reading to eliminate the mistakes I could do in my wannabe self-assessment. Which means my observations should not be that irrelevant. But you should definitely take into consideration that I am not a specialist.

So, to conclude it, I am really excited to be here again, and I hope my blog will not be completely boring, and I will find some readers. Feel free to participate in the discussion or ask questions, even the negative ones. Any account activity is great for me.

FelixFelicisFox