There exists a wide variety of psychopathic personality types. This posting will evaluate the personality type of the paranoid pathological narcissists, which is the most dangerous of all sub-types in the spectrum of personality disorders. Versions of this personality type fall under the malevolent psychopath which are individuals who are quite vindictive and hostile. They are known for their retributive impulses, are hateful, cold-blooded, and exhibit destructive defiance of conventional social life. These individuals stand alongside other sub-types, or variants of psychopathy, for examples individuals who possess passive-aggressive narcissist forms of defiance like the disingenuous psychopath. But for the most part this essay is a broad spectrum of PPD types. The pathological identifications and renunciations of the paranoid narcissist type, both at the unconscious level of object relations and at the conscious level of belief systems and values, engender intentions centered on aggression and destructiveness. This evil intent, or ill will, becomes essential to the individual self cohesion. These extreme cases exhibit an inversion of normal conscience, which punishes good intentions and rewards evil actions and intentions (Syrakic, McCallum, & Milan, 1991). Such disorders of the will significantly attenuate the individual’s freedom to “choose life” over destructiveness. Articulating this broad spectrum concept will require exhuming and revitalizing the relationship between psychopathy and paranoid phenomena, especially the projection of potential negative self-evaluations, as well as restoring angry affect and hostile mood as cardinal features of paranoia. The paranoid type of psychopathic variant possess a potential for violence that is particularly salient, compared to the potential for violence with other psychopathic variants.
In contrast to the malevolent type, the disingenuous psychopath will show a superficially good impression upon acquaintances, this psychopath frequently shows more characteristics of unreliability, impulsiveness tendencies, and deep resentments and moodiness among family members and other close associates. Some of these types of psychopaths raise to levels of power and control as political leaders, business owners, and other public servants. Despite their recognition, they attempt to persuade themselves that their intentions are basically good, and that their insincerely motivated scheming is appreciated for its intrinsic worth. Not likely to admit responsibility for personal or family difficulties, this psychopath manifests a cleverly defensive denial of psychological tensions and conflicts. Interpersonal difficulties are rationalized, and blame is projected upon others. Although self-indulgent and insistent on attention, the disingenuous type provides others with erratic loyalty and reciprocal affection. A flagrant deceitfulness is a principal prototypal characteristic of this variant of psychopathy. These individuals are more willful and insincere in their relationships, doing everything necessary to obtain what they need and want from others. Moreover, and in contrast to other psychopathic variants, they seem to enjoy seductive play, gaining gratification in the excitement and tension thus engendered. Often they are calculating and guileful when someone else has what they covet, be it the attention of a person or some tangible possession. Their basic underlying characteristic resembles only a manipulative and cunning style. Beneath the surface, such psychopaths’ greatest fear is that no one will care for or love them unless they are made to do so. This psychopathic variant seems to be more passive-aggressive rather than physically violent than the malevolent or explosive types of psychopaths. I simply delineated between to variants of the paranoid personality disorder also known as paranoid narcissistic personality disorder.
Factors which are common to personalities in the paranoid spectrum include impediments to developing the will to be morally responsible, an abnormal or defective moral conscience, ineffective inhibitory mechanisms, the habitual use of aggressive and destructive strategies, and unique motivational and catalytic dynamics in which self regulation hinges largely on the use of aggression.
Because there are many faces to the psychopath the groundwork for a much broader spectrum of analysis has been laid out. The psychopath is one who is perceived alternatively as person with an inordinate amount of aggressive drive, as an individual with a defective superego, as a malignant narcissist, as a barely sealed-over psychotic masked as a person with character disorder, and, more recently, as suffering from a subtle dementia. Fenichel, in 1945, emphasized the distortions of early identifications and spoke of “instinct-ridden characters.” Friedlander, in 1945 as well, emphasized the pleasure principle orientation of the psychopath, which suggested both disinheriting and deficient reality orientation. In addition Aichorn, in 1925 and 1935, have noted the contribution of narcissism with Oedipal configurations and a failure of incorporating mainstream traditional parental ideals as a necessary precursor to a developed superego in psychopaths. Horney in 1945 eloquently described the use of exploitation and sadism to increase a sense of power and importance. Horney came to an understanding of the use of aggression and destructiveness in the service of self-enhancement. In 1951 Levy distinguished between individuals who had experienced two extremes of narcissistic injury: the deprived psychopath, who had often experienced a harsh upbringing; and the indulged psychopath, who had often experienced parental overvaluation.
The view of the psychopath as a sealed-over or concealed psychotic is another view mainstream traditional thought has thus been lead. Cleckley in 1941 and 1976 suggested this feature of the psychopath. Cleckly suggested that the psychopaths have a selective dementia that involves affect and language. This dementia is difficult to detect because the psychopath adaptively simulates normal reality orientation, normal affect, and interpersonal attachment. Only the shallowness of higher social affects, the absence of guilt and loyalty, and the inability to appreciate consequences indicate a concealed disregard for the value of reality and misunderstanding of consensual meanings. Studies indicating a negative relationship between traditionally diagnosed stable psychotic syndromes, such as schizophrenia and psychopathy, may have prematurely closed this line of theory development, due to an oversimplification of what was traditionally conveyed by the idea of a sealed-over or covert psychotic disorder. These terms traditionally conveyed more than the delayed onset or the late detection of severley impaired reality testing and first-rank symptoms. They implied what would be referred to now as “borderline personality organization” or “borderline personality structure,” following Kernberg’s 1975 revitalization of such concepts.
Cleckley’s clinical criteria coming from a background in experimental psychophysiology, gives an implicit assumption of a neurophysiologic defect in psychopaths. Cleckley’s “semantic dementia” continues to provide a link between earlier formulations and recent advances in studying groups of psychopaths identified through Hare’s PCL-R, such as the learning, language, and physiological differences that discriminate psychopaths from normals and from no psychopathic individuals with anti-social personality disorder also known as APD (Hare, 1991). Although psychopaths appear not to be impaired on traditional neuropsychological test (Hart, Forth, & Hare, 1990), a kind of evaluative semantic aphasia in psychopathy is being investigated through psycholinguistic and cognitive experiments involving emotional response style, attributions, and moral reasoning (Reiber & Vetter, 1994). These experiments in cognition are, and have been carried out in the name of scientific knowledge. I question if they are morally sound in their ethical context.
In recent study, psychopaths inappropriately substituted attributions of happiness or indifference for appropriate guilt in judging the emotions of protagonists of emotional vignettes, but appropriately attributed happiness, sadness, and embarrassment to protagonists (Blair, Sellars, Strickland, & Clark, 1995). In another study utilizing narratives (Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith 1995), aggressive transgressions and transgressions of moral convention were indistinguishable to all of the psychopathic subjects (n = 20), whereas all the no psychopaths (n=20) made the appropriate distinction these results suggest that psychopaths understand the letter of the law, but not its spirit. That is to say, these studies indicate psychopaths understand the letter of the law but fail at understanding why it is wrong morally.
The belief in a higher power, a belief system, and the value of virtues and ethics could only bring the “spirit” of this understanding into context. It has been noted that the effects of infantile and early childhood experience, combined with biological predispositions, set the stage for the development of psychopathy. It is for this reason that spiritual belief systems may become crucial for early childhood development by instilling values and virtues early on as well as the study of morals, ethics, and virtues. It is also for this reason that ungoing recovery and rehabilitation of the individual requires “getting in touch with one’s higher power” and cognitive learning approaches.
Meloy (1988) intriguing discusses the psychopath as a predator (example, as a human functioning from the “reptilian brain”) is a creative combination of clinical, scientific, and popular notions. However, this animal image obscures the depth of psychopathic deviance. It is not that psychopaths are predators, but that they themselves deeply identify with, and will to possess and to become, the destructive, aggressive, evil intentions and malicious powers that have been historically attributed to the “ignoble beasts,” especially the serpents (Midgley, 1978). Again, the incorporation of a belief system is still used as an avenue in recovery, and it has been recognized that the absences of a belief structure (psychopaths have been considered structurally defective in psychological terms of their psychiatric structuring) as a way in which the re-learning of values and faith based love can and may revitalize a disenfranchised childhood. However, this requires, an active ongoing learning on the part on the individual. Individuals suffering from forms of psychopathy are at risk for relapse, just as cancer patients are at risk of re-occurrence once they enter remission. This therapeutic approach may be combined with medication to help foster recovery.
It has been said that the psychopath pursues power just for its own sake. However, those who pursue power for its own sake are neurotics, entangled in confusion by habit in destroying their own lives. Hobbes realized this:
So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all man-kind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in Death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to; or that he cannot be content with a moderate power: but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.
This puts power in the place of an insurance. But Hobbes still made it central and probably never realized how much this circular psychology limited the value of his political theory, I suspect that Marx’s position was similar. Nietzsche, when he made the Will to Power a primary motive, did try to give it a more direct meaning. He thought of power as straightforward dominance over other people – indeed, more specifically still, delight in tormenting them – which is certainly clearer, but happens to be false except in terms of psychopaths.
So, whereas the neurotic, or the psychotic, seeks power as a mode of insurance of one’s self-enhancement and superior worth, the individual pursuing a spiritual path seeks something quite different. He seeks to become fulfilled with enlightenment. The kind of enlightenment that is derived from a spiritual connection with one and nature and the surrounding people in their environment; peaceful. The neurotic/psychotic on the other hand seems instinctually driven by chaos and destructiveness. This manifestation of evil intent which is a disorder of the mind, may manifests as physical or passive-aggressive violence.
The question now becomes, “Have we a nature?” That is to say, “A nature which we are born in full possession?” Further more, “Does this nature predestine us to become the people we are today, and can this be said for the psychopath?”
Subnote: It is important to note these are only some theories in the field of psychoanalytic study and psychiatry. The implementation of various forms of interventions have, and can be used when trying to perform corrective therapy. But it is the authors opinion, that one of the best approaches is a cognitive approach in relation to the relearning of behavior, and medication may also be needed.
Sources:
Cleckley, H. The Mask of Sanity. St Louis, C.V. Mosby (1976)
Midgley, Mary. Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature. New York, Cornell University Press (1978).
Millon, Theodore, and Davis, Roger D. Ten Subtypes of Psychopathy. Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal and Violent Behavior (Ed.) (pg, 161-187). New York, The Guilford Press (1998).
Richards, Henry. Evil Intent: Violence and Disorders of the Will. Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal and Violent Behavior (Ed.) (pg. 69-93). New York, The Guilford Press (1998).
Proclivities' Principle Wisdom 