Around 16 years ago, I published my first book, In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People. I did so because I was working with many people who had been victimized in some way by a manipulator.  Knowing how many people had been subjected to various control tactics, back-stabbing, underhanded maneuvers, subtle abuse, etc., and the host of problems (e.g., depression, internal turmoil, relationship confusion, etc.) was eye-opening.  I also came to appreciate that several of the notions about human behavior the victims held - many promoted by traditional psychological paradigms - were actually making it harder for them to understand and deal with the behavior of their manipulators.  After working closely with manipulators, various other disturbed characters, and relatively healthy individuals victimized by the responsibility-challenged people in their lives, I decided a radical new approach could help people protect themselves from the harmful things disturbed characters are prone to do.  In Sheep’s Clothing was the result of utilizing this new approach to help people understand and deal with the disturbed characters in their lives, especially manipulators.  For the first time, it allowed people to understand what was really going on with their abuser, how they managed to get hoodwinked, blindsided, and manipulated, and what they could do to keep such things from happening again.

In Sheep’s Clothing started out as a small, independent publication, targeted toward a relatively small market.  Yet it was received by the public in a manner I could barely have imagined.  After several revisions, numerous online reviews and testimonials, and unprecedented word-of-mouth, it became a bestseller and has been translated into several foreign languages.  It has been revised a few times, but its basic content has remained as stable and as timely as its subject matter.

Just a few weeks ago (March 31, 2010) a brand new edition of In Sheep’s Clothing was released by Parkhurst Brothers Publishers.  This edition contains some new content and provides a suitable introduction to my new book, Character Disturbance, which takes an in-depth look at the disturbing phenomenon of our age.  Character Disturbance is also published by Parkhurst Brothers and is scheduled for wide release on July 31, 2010.  It is my sincere hope that both of these works cast a needed new light on a societal problem that appears to be becoming ever more prevalent in our age of permissiveness, entitlement, and irresponsibility.

As I described in my last post (see “What Were They Thinking? - Part 2”), persons with disturbed characters don’t act the way we do largely because they don’t think the way we do.  

Stanton Samenow was among the early researchers to catalog the distorted thinking patterns or “errors in thinking” which some of the most severely disturbed characters (those with criminal records) display. Over the years, I’ve adapted and modified several of the erroneous thinking patterns he and other researchers brought to light and added several of my own that I came to realize played a crucial role in the problems created by the disordered characters I have treated. The first erroneous thinking pattern I’ll be discussing is one I label “Egocentric Thinking”.  

The disordered character thinks so much about himself that it’s second nature. His concerns are almost always with himself and for himself. Whatever the situation or issue initially is, somehow it ends up about him. Disordered characters so frequently think about things that they want because that’s what’s important to them. They hardly ever think about what someone else might want or need, because they attach such little importance to that. Because he thinks the entire world revolves around him, he often thinks that others should care primarily about what he desires and what interests him.

When the disturbed character wants something, he doesn’t think about whether it’s right, good, legal, or whether his pursuit of it might adversely affect anyone — he only cares that he wants it. His incessant concern for himself and the things that he desires creates a pattern of thinking which embodies an attitude of indifference to the rights, needs, wants, and expectations of others. This attitude of indifference fosters a complete disregard for social obligation, and in some cases, as Samenow notes, an ardent disdain for and refusal to accept social obligation. As self-centered as he is, the disturbed character believes the world owes him everything and that he owes the world nothing. He has extremely high expectations for everyone else, but feels no concomitant sense that he should subjugate himself to the expectations of others or society in general. His thinking patterns, attitudes, and their resultant behaviors prompt him to lead an extremely self-centered lifestyle.

Persons with disturbed characters don’t act the way most of us do largely because they don’t think the way we do. They don’t hold the same values, harbor the same attitudes, or share the same core beliefs. Their way of thinking is often marked by a distorted perception of reality and a perverted sense of social responsibility. Their ways of thinking are always reflected in the ways they act. To a much lesser extent, their ways of thinking might be discernible from the things they say. Sometimes they believe the things they say with genuine conviction and with total obliviousness to the ways that most other people think about similar things. Other times, they might have started out only half-heartedly believing the lies they told themselves about the reality of situations, but after lying so often they began to believe their distorted perspectives. Sometimes, however, they’re very keenly aware of how most people would tend to think, but in their innate combativeness they resist submitting themselves to the perspective others want them to adopt and instead try to manipulate others into buying into their distorted point of view.  

For example, an habitual wife beater might very well know how society at large feels about violence toward women by abusive spouses. Nonetheless, they might try to justify their behavior by constantly complaining that most women are “bitches” and rightfully “have it coming” when they “disrespect” their husbands. This type of disturbed character might very well know how most people would look at the attitudes he harbors. Nonetheless, such a person might do all he could to convince another person to adopt this point of view — not so much because he seeks validation, but because if he can get someone else to at least agree with some part of his assertions, he can cast himself in a slightly more favorable light. Others then would see him as perhaps a misguided soul who simply “doesn’t get it” with respect to how to view women, as opposed to a person who “gets it” just fine but vehemently resists adopting this societal standard and wants to justify himself by convincing others to see things at least somewhat his way.

Sometimes disturbed characters will advance points of view that even they don’t really believe but which they want you to believe that they believe purely for the purpose of manipulation and impression management. For example, I’ve encountered many child molesters who tried to advance the notion that their inappropriate touching of their victim was not motivated by aberrant sexual desire but rather by a foolish or misguided attempt to “teach” the child about sexual behavior. This kind of thing always puts me in the position of having to ask myself: “Do they really believe what they’re saying?” What I learned is that most of the time, they did not believe what they were trying to assert. But they hoped that I would think that they did in fact believe what they were purporting to believe so that I would ascribe neither the appropriate degree of malevolence nor the correct motivation (e.g., sexual interest in a child) for their behavior. I might, for example, see them as an under-educated, poorly guided soul who made a stupid mistake instead of a predatory pedophile or a heartless psychopath.

In the upcoming series of posts, I’ll describe different types of distorted thinking patterns displayed by some of the most severely disturbed characters, beginning with one I call Egocentric Thinking.

In my prior posts, I’ve talked about what my experience working with disturbed characters has taught me about why such individuals lie, especially when at times there appears to be no useful purpose to the lie Now, there is some research coming out of USC that supports much of what I have been saying about lying and the reasons for it.  Investigators looking into the reasons people lie came up with 9 reasons, 8 of which are easily reducible to two basic categories, namely to avoid something undesirable (e.g., punishment) and to secure something desirable more easily or reliably (i.e. by cheating) than you would likely secure through honesty.  These results confirm what my observations have been.  More interestingly, however, the recent research has also confirmed a third reason people lie which I’ve long pointed to as a cardinal trait of the most disordered characters.  That reason is to purely to have power or advantage over another.  You see, disordered characters (most especially, the aggressive personalities) never want the field of play to be level. They want to be in a position to take advantage of others and to exploit their weaknesses.  So they always try to assert or establish a one-up position.  This completely explains why some of the most disordered characters lie even when it appears to serve no useful purpose.  Lying is an effective way to keep others in the dark or in a disadvantaged position with respect to knowing what kind of person or issues they’re dealing with.  So, even when there appears no other useful purpose to lying, keeping someone else second-guessing or at a disadvantage with respect to having your number so to speak is reason enough to lie.  

So, now there appears to be some solid empirical support for things I’ve been saying for a long time and first spelled out in my book In Sheep’s Clothing back in 1996.  Perhaps that’s another reason why the book has lasted so uncommonly long as a bestseller.  As my work and writing gain popularity around the globe, I’m both humbled and honored by the notion that my observations about the nature and tactics of character disordered individuals are increasingly being proven valid.  

Folks who are quick to go on the offensive in this very calculated way whenever they face resistance are not likely to take a good look at themselves or the healthiness of their way of doing things.  Their combative stance also blocks any chance that they will internalize a more pro-social a standard of self-conduct. 

Individuals who are in relationships with persons who use the tactic of covert-intimidation often are at high risk that the relationship will be abusive, exploitive or both.  I’ve been posting on some of the more frequent tactics disturbed characters use to manipulate and control others.  Observing the frequency with which a person uses these tactics should give you some good insight into the nature of their character and how likely you are to have any kind of healthy relationship with them.  

But minimizing serious transgressions is also the way the disordered character lies to himself about the full extent of his character deficiencies and behavior problems.  As long as he continues to minimize, he won’t take seriously the problems he needs to correct.  As with all the other manipulation tactics, this behavior obstructs the internalization of values and standards of conduct.  It’s the way disturbed characters resist accepting responsibility.  As long as a person trivializes important matters related to their conduct, they won’t take seriously the need to change that conduct.  

Seasoned manipulators are good at making the case for discounting the seriousness of their wrongdoing.  Anyone who accepts their minimizations is therefore successfully manipulated.  So, when it comes to important matters, minimizations like “I only did it once,” or “she wasn’t hurt that bad,” should never be accepted.  

Individuals best described as “neurotic” are very different from those with significant disturbances of character.  In contrast to disturbed characters who tend to manipulate, avoid responsibility, and bring undue stress to others through minimizing, neurotics tend to bring undue stress upon themselves by catastrophizing.  They’re so overly conscientious, that any little thing they do wrong is magnified in their own mind as a calamity.  I’ve been posting on another blog about the various and significant differences between neurotics and disordered characters.  I’ve also posted on this blog about other manipulation tactics such as externalizing, rationalizing, and lying.  I’ll be posting on several other manipulation tactics in the coming weeks.

“Denial” has traditionally been conceptualized as an ego defense mechanism.  In other words, it’s been presumed that when a person denies the reality of a situation, they do so unconsciously because the reality is simply too painful to bear.  But when disturbed characters engage in denial, they’re generally not in a state of psychological unawareness prompted by a deep inner pain about who they are or what they have been doing.  Rather, disordered characters more frequently use denial (i.e., an unwillingness to admit their wrongdoing) as a tactic to feign innocence, and to manage the impression of others who might otherwise have their number.  If the denial is strong enough, a good neurotic might be successfully manipulated into second-guessing himself.  Disordered characters often won’t admit when they’ve done something wrong, and resist looking at any role their behavior patterns have played in creating problems in their lives.  They lie to themselves and others about their malevolent acts and intentions as a tactic to get others off their back.  If their denial is forceful and convincing enough, others will likely be successfully manipulated. 

Denial is not only an effective manipulation tactic, but it’s also a sure sign someone is not about to change his or her way of behaving.  A person who won’t acknowledge their wrongs in the first place isn’t likely to feel any inclination to correct them.  Habitual denial is the way many disordered characters resist internalizing the values and standards of conduct that could make them more socially responsible.

I’ve posted before on what denial is and what it isn’t.  I’ve made an effort to distinguish between a true defense mechanism and a tactic of manipulation and responsibility-avoidance.  

I’ve been posting on another blog about the various characteristics of individuals with disturbed characters.  A more in-depth exploration of manipulation tactics, why they work, and how to best respond to them so as not to be victimized can be found in my book In Sheep’s Clothing.

Sometimes counselors have called this tactic projecting the blame.  Projection is another one of those automatic mental behaviors traditionally thought of as an ego defense mechanism.  The rationale behind that notion is that sometimes individuals unconsciously “project” onto others motivations, intentions, or actions that they they are far too unnerved over or feel such overwhelming guilt about that they can’t acknowledge them as their own.  But disordered characters know what they are doing.  They are fully conscious about the what others would see as the wrongfulness of their behavior and they’re perfectly comfortable with the behavior nonetheless.  They don’t have enough guilt or shame about they’re doing to change course.  So, when they attempt to justify their position by casting themselves as the victim of someone else’s wrongdoing, they simultaneously evade responsibility as well as manipulate others into thinking that they’re really a good guy who had no choice but to respond the way they did.  It’s an effective tactic to manage the impression of others.  The tactic goes hand in hand with the tactic of portraying oneself as a victim.  It’s an effective tactic that gets others to pay attention to everyone or everything else except the disordered character himself and his harmful behavior patterns as the sources of a problem.  I’ve been posting a series of articles for the Psychology, Philosophy and Real Life blog about individuals with a character disorder and how they differ from other personality types.  I’ve also posted on other manipulation tactics such as rationalizing and lying.  

Externalizing the blame (i.e. blaming others and circumstances for personal shortcomings) is a particularly insidious manipulation tactic and responsibility-aviodance habit.  A person who won’t acknowledge his or her bad choices and repeatedly blames others for his failures will never correct his erroneous thinking, attitudes, or problem behavior.  Whenever you hear an excuse, you know the disturbed character has no intentions of changing his ways.  And whenever you confront someone on their bad behavior, don’t be tricked into thinking it’s somehow your’s or someone else’s fault that they did what they did.  I’ve written on how to avoid being taken in by this tactic in my book In Sheep’s Clothing. 

When a person rationalizes for something they know is wrong, they’re also making a statement about how they feel toward the principle at stake.  For example, when a person continuously attempts to excuse their belligerant behavior, they’re making a statement about how they feel about the wrongness of bullying.  They’re also sending a clear signal about how likely they are to do the same thing again.  As long as they continue to excuse their behavior, it’s likely they’ll repeat it.  That’s because they haven’t submitted themselves to a different principle of conduct.  That’s why it’s so important to never be swayed by or accept an excuse.  Not only do you get manipulated, you put yourself in the position of having the same thing done to you again that you found that you took issue with in the first place.

The problems associated with disturbed characters might be so engrained that they occur “automatically,” but the disordered character is fully conscious of them.  He knows exactly what’s going on, what he’s doing, why he’s doing it, and even why others consider his behaviors problematic.  Lying is one of the more common of his problem behaviors.  Sometimes the disordered character lies so “automatically” that he lies even when the truth would have done just fine.  That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know he’s lying.  He knows – he just does it so often and readily that he does it without even thinking about it.

A fair amount of the time, when disturbed characters are confronted about why they did something hurtful, they will reply:  “To tell you the truth, I don’t know.”  In my experience, this is most always a lie designed to manipulate and impression-manage others as well as to evade responsibility.  “I don’t know” doesn’t  really mean that the disordered character is oblivious to his motivations (i.e. has no conscious awareness of his intent).  Instead, it often means “I’ve never really thought about it;” or “I don’t want to talk about it now;” or “I don’t want to tell you because they you’ll have my number, the con game will be over, and you’ll start holding me more accountable.”  I get weekly testimonials from readers of my writings and former workshop attendees that often attest to how much their lives changed once they stopped taking “I don’t know” for an answer when confronting the disordered character they’d been dealing with.  In contrast to neurotics, disturbed characters do the hurtful things they do intentionally, albeit habitually. 

Disturbed characters are ever so different from most of us.  I’ve posted on how they differ from neurotics on issues like anxiety, conscience, and the ability to experience genuine shame and guilt.  In the coming weeks I’ll highlight more of their key differences.