Shameless and Guiltless Thinking in Character Disturbance
It could easily be said that the principal quality that defines a character disorder is that the disturbed character neither cares enough nor thinks enough about how his patterns of behavior reflects on his character.
I’ve been posting a series of articles on the types of distorted thinking patterns or “thinking errors” common to individuals who have significant disturbances of character. We’re nearing the end of this series. The series has featured a fair number of the more common problematic thinking patterns, including unreasonable thinking, egocentric thinking, external thinking, hard-luck thinking, egomaniacal thinking, hedonistic thinking, and impulsive thinking. The main purpose of this series of articles is to help you get better acquainted with the typical and problematic ways persons with disturbed characters tend to think. Individuals with disturbed characters are unique individuals who are often quite difficult to live or work with. Some prior posts have explored just what constitutes a disturbed or disordered character:
- “Disturbances of Character”
- “What is a Character Disorder?”
- “What is a Character Disorder? Part 2: Questions and Comments”
Knowing how such individuals tend to think can help anyone understand them better because how we think about things in large measure determines how we will act, and disturbed characters often act in ways that create big problems for relationships and for society in general.
Because an immature or impaired conscience is a hallmark feature of the disturbed character, such characters have a diminished capacity to experience genuine guilt over actions or intended actions that injure others. So when they’re thinking about doing something, disordered characters rarely think about how their actions might affect others or possibly transgress ethical or moral boundaries. To the degree that they might have at least some rudimentary conscience, they’re able to quickly and effectively block out thoughts of right and wrong when they’re seriously contemplating how to get something they want. Not caring enough about how their behavior might impact someone else, they simply give the rightness or wrongness of their plans no serious consideration. They might very well know that others would view their behavior as wrong, but they can still rationalize and justify with ease. Over time, this guiltless way of thinking promotes a pervasive attitude of irresponsibility.
Earlier I discussed deficiencies of conscience and shame in disordered characters:
Because disordered characters also have a deficient sense of shame, they almost never think of how some action of theirs might negatively reflect the kind of person they are. This is such an important point because it could easily be said that the principal quality that defines a character disorder is that the disturbed character neither cares enough nor thinks enough about how his patterns of behavior reflects on his character. What’s more, when disturbed characters do perceive that someone is judging them in a negative manner, they easily think that it’s the other person who has the problem. Some of the most severely disturbed characters might even count it as a badge of honor that they are not affected by the opinions of others and hold onto their grandiose and unrealistic self-images despite a track record of wreaking havoc in the lives of those they work or live with. Over time, their shameless thinking fosters the development of quite a brazen attitude.
Our series on the thinking errors common to disturbed characters will conclude with the next post on “Circumstantial Thinking.”
7 Responses (3 Discussion Threads) to “Shameless and Guiltless Thinking in Character Disturbance”
The comment form is currently closed.
Narcissistic, antisocial, sociopathic, sadistic. Moral development suspended at Kohlberg Level 1.2. Eriksonian pathway something like dis-trustful > hyper-autonomous > narcissistic-protective initiative > hedonistic competence > smugly self-righteous identity > sadistic pseudo-intimacy > self-serving generativity > selfish, entitled narcissistic integration.
That we will find them on the other side of the table in some college fraternity dining room, a car lot closer’s office or federal prison setting (income tax evasion, fraud, Ponzi schemes) is fairly obvious. That we will find them writing up our refinance packages and packing our ostensible “bailouts” with pork is distressing… unless, of course, one has finally arrived at the following conclusion:
People used to acquire the various forms of narcissistic and antisocial personality disorders from genetic predispositions for impulsivity and interactions with family members and adolescent peers. Now it is clear that many acquire — and/or very substantially reinforce — these belief and behavior systems from the commercial media. It’s just so -cool- to be a “thug,” a “car thief,” a “dope runner,” a “wise guy,” a “stock speculator,” or a “launderer” now.
The media presents the role models in film and film, TV show after TV show, and video game after video game. They’re all driving “rides,” wetting their noodles in the equally instrumentalistic tails of the new age “wise girl” (if she isn’t busy hustling saps on the Internet, acting certain (a -huge- attraction to those who -aren’t-) and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.
Dave Lykken explained it best in “The Case for Parental Licensure” in Teddy Millon et al’s -Psychopathology-: “In the United States today [1995], it can be said that we are operating a veritable factory of crime.”
Interesting website.
As humans evolve, we objectify more and more of what used to be context. I think this is natural. And I hope that the writers have enough self-awareness to note that the idea put forth in this article is yet another objectification of what used to be context. In Developmental Levels, the early level of self-gratification is a legitimate level of both child development and evolutionary development. Taking what one wants from others is a legitimate form of acquiring – when you’re 3 or 4 years old. And there is no understanding in the 3 or 4 year old of why this is not good. One wants the thing, one takes the thing, one has the thing = Good! It is progress compared to sitting on one’s butt and whining until someone else gives them the thing. Same with evolutionary development.
But what happens when the one who gets stuck there is passed up by his/her peers who develop and evolve what comes next – conscience? Conscience comes by the systematic social shaming process and the repression and subsequent inversion of impulses and feelings. That is how it works. And when an adult with full cognitive functioning and numb-spots around punitive trauma looks at that process, it is completely logical for them to conclude that it is a sad and evil thing.
I suspect there is a window of opportunity during childhood when one is still ignorant of the negative consequences of repression, and when that window closes, the natural progression towards conscience is derailed. At that point, no amount of rational, logical justification is going to convince them that repression, shame and guilt are good ideas. To them, we all look like stupid sheep being led to slaughter. This is perfectly understandable. So, what do we do instead, to help these people evolve towards a more compassionate co-existence? Trying to drag them through the shaming stages of development is an insult to their intelligence and destroys our credibility as problem solvers.
We need more alternatives besides “ain’t it awful?”. And those alternatives will have to come from minds who can objectify their own context of pathologizing such things. This kind of transcendence will always be scary because it feels as if we are being tolerant of the excuses of those who cause problems. But this is not how it ends up being. The ability to navigate deeper water always comes after letting go of the side of the pool.
“I suspect there is a window of opportunity during childhood when one is still ignorant of the negative consequences of repression, and when that window closes, the natural progression towards conscience is derailed. At that point, no amount of rational, logical justification is going to convince them that repression, shame and guilt are good ideas. To them, we all look like stupid sheep being led to slaughter. This is perfectly understandable. So, what do we do instead, to help these people evolve towards a more compassionate co-existence? Trying to drag them through the shaming stages of development is an insult to their intelligence and destroys our credibility as problem solvers.”
Solid logic above.
Yes; I agree that if we try to “therapize” criminals (at whatever age) by forcing them to re-experience the paranoia, shame and guilt that -punished- them enough (in the Skinnerian sense) to negatively reinforce their sociopathic narcissism, we most often fail.
But that is not what the prison therapist does in this state. We grade the prisoners for depth of ego defenses, exclude those who are “impossible” (on the basis of pretty solid, statisticalized evidence) and treat those who are not.
In the latter circumstance, the therapists pretty much allow them to come to their own conclusions about what is practical belief and behavior in a social world… after they have been exposed to a fair amount of “reporting” (-not- “lecturing”) from prisoners like -themselves- who have been through the same process before them and who are doing well in parole.
Our objective is to dismantle the “vato loco” (see Eddie James Olmos’s “El Pachuco” in the 1981 film “Zoot Suit”) or “inner thug” value and belief system between their ears that tells them they -must- be antisocial, sociopathic and even sadistic to protect themselves from the world as they have believed it to be: threatening, abusive, violent and intolerant… unless one is -just- as threatening, abusive, violent and intolerant in return. (They even show the movie in some prisons.)
We then examine the punishing, abusive, invalidating, intolerant “not-okay inner parents” inside their heads (in group therapy). And the prisoners — by themselves for the most part — will engage themselves and each other to dismantle those “not-okay inner parents.” It works about 2/3s of the time for those who are not 3rd Strike and have an opportunity for parole.
Most of them — if they do not return to their old playgrounds, old playmates, and old playthings — do not recidivize. The stats vary greatly by county, the quality of the post-incaceration programs and case management, but the vast majority of prisoners who “do the do” do -not- show up again in the state prison system.
Good comments, all.
I must make one comment about shame, a most misunderstood phenomenon. As I mentioned in some earlier posts on the subject, these days the consensus is that all shame is bad. Countless articles and books have been written endorsing the tolerance of guilt (feeling bad over something we’ve done) while completely decrying any modicum of shame (feeling bad about who we are). While I agree that lecturing those with severe character disturbances and trying to “drag them through” the developmental processes that facilitate the experience of shame is not only detrimental but futile, I have never been more impressed in my work over nearly 30 years with the positive role shame has played in the reconstruction of many once wayward life. Of the several hundreds of cases with which I’m directly familiar, almost to a person the crucial variable for a person who finally turned their life around was coming to an absolute sense of unacceptability with the kind of person they had allowed themselves to become and wanting to fashion a self-image they could truly feel respectful of. Because human beings have such an incredible capacity to learn, despite social and cultural depravity, other environmental, constitutional, genetic and trauma-based factors that might have inhibited their social development, they can and do indeed learn to become more responsible and productive. They can especially do this when appropriate attention is given to the dysfunctional thinking and behavior patterns that fuel irresponsible conduct and when their efforts toward correction of these patterns is reinforced. But what I have seen happen over and over again is displeasure with oneself and one’s character – not just one’s various aspects of behavior – often serves as the catalyst for dramatic change.
Ahhh…, yes; in this context (as per Tangney and Dearing, for example), shame -is- a useful motivator. But what I see in most antisocials is a version of shame that is borderline-organized and either “next to non-existent” over -here-, and “intolerably punishing” over -there-.
Most of the antisocials I deal with in both substance abuse and/or prison populations have these polarized, split-dissociated superego introjects about shame and guilt. These two concepts are retained in mutually unconscious compartments, both of which are largely “unsupervised” by an effective “executive ego.” (In true sociopaths, of course, the “useful shame or guilt” concept is almost -never- demonstrated.)
Therapists who attempt to “heap shame” or use it as a brickbat, more or less as the antisocial’s parent(s) did to “damn” the (inner) child, tend to run into therapeutic resistance. Theraptists do better when they recognize that these prisoners or deferees have to be allowed to find their own wellsprings of “healthy shame” to tap as motivation to recover. We use a Vygotsyan “scaffold” to accomplish this: the prisoners who have been in group longer than the newer people talk about their “acquisition” of shame (and/or guilt), the new people identify with -them- sufficiently to process their own stuff, the new people realize their own affects, etc.
Moreover, I find that because most of the incarcerees are concrete operational processors, they will have to find this wellspring in increasingly processed memories of having harmed someone near and dear to them. For example, most of the “thugs” and “vato locos” I have dealt with experience far more guilt (remorse; vis Tangney and Dearing) than shame (embarrassment) about having hurt “mama” or their children than they do about the objects of their criminal acts.
The knowledge about character disorders has been around for decades now. Unfortuneately, it was presented in language that was inaccessable to most people. It is difficult to really understand the impact of someone with a narcissistic behaviour disorder until it happens to you. In some way, one needs to feel the impact of gaslighting, lying, fraud, theft before one can really understand the disorder. It is rampant in our society. It is destroying a pretty good democracy.
Most people dont even know that these characters exist and they cant grasp their behaviour. If a person has a conscience, it is very, very hard to understand someone who does not have a conscience. Nevertheless, the piano falls on the unaware.
I think this information is really important and there needs to be more plain speaking about it. One does not want to deprive someone from receiving treatment and reaching their full potential, of course. But I am talkikng about people who play hardball and have no remorse. They are out there and there is a dominant belief system that says that everyone can benefit from therapy. I think this is unfortuneate.
I enjoy this blog very much.
Thanks,
Rossi
Thanks so much for your comment, Rossi. You’re right on the mark. As to your comment about the dominant belief that everyone can benefit from therapy: There are in fact effective interventions for the character-disordered. It’s just that traditional “therapy” is not effective and in some cases, actually detrimental. That’s why people who try force their character-disordered associates into “therapy” get so frustrated in the end. But there are interventions that work. Too bad very few clinicians use them.
When it comes to disordered characters who truly have no capacity for conscience (i.e. psychopaths), even CD-oriented interventions appear useless.