I would like to understand what kind of basis is being used to evaluate if a person is truly involved with a Psychopath? There are many bad marriages, there are two sides to each story. It would be interesting to take a look based on Dr. Hare's list/criteria. Perhaps giving us direct examples based on this criteria and how this all took place and what happened.

The perspective of the victim is very important to understand. Sadly the victim is all alone looking at pure evil. It is something we need to name and examine.

Superficial Charm? Might that be a place to start? The psychopath I know is the most charming person I have ever met, yet his charm has never sustained a single altrusitic deed, in the 30 years I have known him. His charm is a tool which serves only his selfish intents. People on the periphery of his life may never find him out because they are not around long enough to see what comes of the seeds he sows. And even those who are may buy the psychopath's illusion that he is the victim of his true victims. The psychopath's charm is his cover. And it is extremely effective. People are much more swayed by their impressions than they are by facts. Most people will let charm sway their opinion every time.

This is an excellent topic Di. I'd like to share my own experience here soon and hear what others have to say as well.

In this post I'd like to share something that happened today. I started a course of short term therapy for help and support in taking the next steps in my recovery. I went back to the therapist that I originally saw when I first left my Psychopath; a time where I felt like I was losing my mind with the pain, despair, confusion, racing thoughts, fear, and all the horror and PTSD that survivors experience when they first leave their Psychopath. I was fortunate enough at that time to find someone who understood Psychopathy. After meeting with me several times and hearing my stories, it was she that first told me he was a very dangerous man and probably a Psychopath. She told me she feared for my life. She helped me, over the next months to get back on my feet, to focus on priorities, and to not go back to him. She helped me get grounded in reality again, bit by bit. It took a long time.

Today she saw me with some recovery, more clear headed, calmer, not brainwashed anymore, and not living in terror and not wondering anymore how I would survive. She told me how different I looked and sounded, and how afraid she was for me back then. She asked me if I realized how far I had come. I saw through her eyes how far I have come and how hard I have fought to recover. I told her about this forum and how much it had helped, and about reading Dr. Hare's book. Being with her today and talking again was like touching the past; and remembering the horror up close for a few minutes.

I guess the first part of my "How can you tell" story was that wise, kind and honest therapist telling me back then that she thought he was a Psychopath. It was a wake up call. Part of me didn't agree with her then since I still had feelings for him although I hated him too. I wholeheartedly agree with her now.

NeverTheSame:
Congratulations on your progress, your post is an inspiration.
-Leti

Dianne, I misread your post. I thought you were suggesting that we discuss Dr. Hare's diagnostic criteria. Reading it, again, I realize you were suggesting that we discuss our experiences through the lens of those criteria.

kris

NeverTheSame, But better and better, and maybe wiser than ever. Hug! kris

Lying for example. A person might tell a new prospective mate that they sang in a local talent contest and placed third. It may be a lie, like letting one know they sing well enough to be in a contest, but two others sang better. Like building up the product they are trying to sell. It may be true, told, and left alone.

A psychopath will tell the prospective mate that they sang in the contest on a certain day, certain time, very publicized contest. What clothes they wore, how nervous they were to be in front of a crowd. That they sang like a songbird, the audience loved it, standing ovation. That they thought it was certainly a winning performance. Unfortunately, placed second.

Yet, only because the winner had nicer clothes, better equipment and had made a career out of entering talent contests. The winner's voice was "okay", nothing fantastic in their opinion. It was the "show" that captured the audience and the judges. Had the p had nicer clothes, better equipment and more experience, they would have won for certain.

The p lying part? The contest never existed. Or it was at a family reunion and everybody, even the babies were grabbing any instrument and belting out a tune. Or the p telling the story never was in the contest at all, but went and observed and fantasized about how it would have turned out, had they been in it. The fantasy and the lie can take many turns, be told many ways, with a p usually very detailed ways.

The listener of the story would have no real reason to doubt it. They were not there. They might even feel sympathy for the p and tell them that they will buy them a wonderful outfit for "next time", or that they are the best singer they ever heard in their life.

Now you have two people buying into a lie. The one who tells it, the one who naively believed it because it sounds so very true, so very real.

P's tell lies to impress, to avoid problems, to get out of something they have done, to look like someone they are not, to make others look bad and just because they can. Sometimes just for the thrill of getting something over on someone.

Yes, you are right. There are two sides to any marriage. In a marriage to a psychopath their side is the lying one. The spouse's side is the one who believe's.

This is my take on the part of criteria about psychopath lying. I hope I understood your post right and replied in context of the question. It will be very interesting to read the replies of others also. I have already learned some things by those that have replied. Thank you.

Laura

operalover, I have to say that part of your criteria makes me nervous.

"Also, the person claims to have been victimized by so many people that they carry little
or no responsibility for their own current problems - there is always an "explanation.""

I think therapists tend to look for this "red flag", and while it is may be a reliable indicator
of psychopathy, or personality disorder, it CAN BE completely unreliable, as well.
Remember that a person who believes there is a boogey man in his closet may either be a
paranoid, or a person who has a boogey man, in his closet.

I know there are people whose lives have been formed, in such a way, that the purpose
which enfolds through them, is marked by a struggle with forces of evil, as they act
through people here on earth. The content of the purpose may be to learn about these
forces, and add something to the body of wisdom regarding them.

This is part of the short-sightedness I see as a problem in the model of therapeutic
wisdom. Through the therapeutic model, one views people as if the norm is a happy,
relatively uncomplicated life. Thus, chronic problems are a symptom of something wrong
with the client. The truth is, chronic problems may be the unfolding of the client's karma
or destiny.

The therapeutic model views people through the eyes of this world only. As if this all
there is. But it is impossible to understand the full meaning of a human life by looking
only with this limited sight. And the worse thing is, a person's real goodness and strength
may be interpreted as pathology, when viewed through such a short-sighted lens.

I also do not believe that self-reported “chronic victimization” is one of Dr. Hare’s
criteria.