I’ve shared about relevant pieces that appeared on:

• CNN
• CNN.com
• Fox News Channel
• The Wall Street Journal
• Channel 4 in the UK

Surprisingly enough, there was even a ponerology-related moment on the sports network ESPN, which I also highlighted here.

What you’ll notice is that all of the aforementioned media outlets are ones with national reach. And that’s good news – pun intended – because it means that, through stories like the ones to which I’ve linked, large audiences are receiving information about, as well as being encouraged to consider, the influence of those with low empathy and conscience.

However, there is also something to be said for the impact of a story appearing in local news. Some people feel a closer tie with their local media outlets – whose personalities can come to seem almost like part of their family and with which they may have been engaging ever since childhood – and, therefore, might trust them more. Or they may feel that, if a story makes it to their local newspaper, radio program or telecast, it has more personal relevance to them than they do when they encounter it in a national outlet.

I have posted about at least one ponerology-related report from local news – a “Healthy Living” segment on KABC-TV in Los Angeles that focused on the work of Dr. Ronald Schouten and James Silver, authors of Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy?

But, for whatever reason, while there seems to have been a minor explosion of coverage on this subject in larger media outlets, it has been relatively rare that I’ve come across it in local media.

However, I was pleasantly surprised this week.

When I visited the homepage of the Detroit Free Press the other day, this is what I saw (see red arrow in the image below) in the list of top headlines, right underneath a nice fuzzy story about a local business leader’s charity-benefiting March Madness bracket success.

(Click image to view larger)

I was surprised because I didn’t expect to see the topic of psychopathy pop up in a hometown paper. I was even more surprised because I really didn’t expect to see it pop up there in this fashion – not just generically, but as part of a headline offering specific guidance to help people consider whether someone in a position of power over them may have the condition. Ponerology had definitely hit the Detroit Free Press.

Here is the actual article entitled “20 signs your boss might be a psychopath.”

As you can see, it is written by Michael L. Diamond and originally appeared in the Asbury Park Press, a local paper from the New Jersey city made famous by Bruce Springsteen. Asbury Park Press, like the Detroit Free Press, is a Gannett Company. So it appears that the story was taken from one local paper and then shared with other local papers owned by the same holding company. Thus, it garnered attention in various areas of the country, but did so by means of local outlets.

Diamond’s story quotes Kean University psychology professor Richard Conti. In a previous post, I’ve asked “Should Kids Learn about Ponerology in School?”. Well, although he doesn’t use (and may not know) the actual term ponerology, Conti seems to believe that, at least at the college level, they should. According to Diamond, Conti is teaching his students about “psychopathic traits found in business and government leaders,” a subject that could hardly be more central to the work of Andrew M. Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, the book most responsible for popularizing the term ponerology.

Diamond mentions the public’s “complicated relationship” with leaders who are often widely admired as brilliant and strong on account of the very traits that, viewed in another light, might reveal them to be devious and dangerous.

A student of Conti’s is quoted, describing one of the characteristics of psychopaths. I see that quote – the words of a young woman expressing to a journalist her knowledge about a conscience-reducing condition that she has been taught in her school occurs among those in positions of power – as a symbol of something we desperately need more of.

Diamond then lists 20 traits associated with psychopathy, encouraging the reader to rate their boss on each to determine a final score. In the Asbury Park Press’ original version of the article, a sub-headline in big letters above the article copy implores the reader to “Take the test below to find out if your boss shows psychopathic tendencies.” If the score is high enough, Diamond even urges them to “call security.”

Now, obviously, this is not a truly valid means of assessment. A layperson cannot definitively diagnose or rule out psychopathy in anyone using a tool or method like this. But that is beside the point.

The point is that Diamond has planted a seed in his readers’ minds, just like the seed his primary article subject, Richard Conti, has planted in the minds of his students. He has provided some basic information about the kinds of characteristics exhibited by psychopaths, which is not only educational, but sure to generate curiosity. And he has nurtured that curiosity, encouraging its development into – and the application of this newfound knowledge toward – healthy questioning about the nature of authority figures.

Both Diamond and Conti are contributing to the emergence in the public of wise skepticism and an enlightened form of discriminating thinking regarding the possibility of reduced capacities for empathy and conscience among those in power. For this, they should both be commended.

I completed my primary writing about ponerology in early 2012. As I worked on it, and then for a number of months after finishing it, I kept thinking about starting a separate blog dedicated to documenting the growing number of cases in which ponerologic issues surfaced in the media. What impelled me to finally create PonerologyNews.com in early 2013 was – as described in this post about it, the very first post on this site – my discovery, at a very coincidental moment, of a Yahoo headline story about psychopathic bosses.

Now, thanks to Michael L. Diamond’s work, the first story of this type that I’ve featured here from a local newspaper is also one about psychopathic bosses.

I think the fact that that particular angle on ponerology – the possibility of psychopathy among workplace leadership – has repeatedly been key is appropriate.

Conscience-reducing disorders affect us profoundly whenever they influence our systems. They may even affect us more profoundly when they influence high levels of power structures. But it is perhaps easiest for most people new to the subject to begin to recognize their impact and relevance on a level at which they are very personally and directly affected.

The level on which this occurs most personally and directly is probably actually the family level. However, for a variety of reasons, there is often tremendous resistance, especially initially, to acknowledging such disturbing dysfunction within the family.

The next most personal and direct level at which to become conscious commonly involves a setting in which people viscerally experience the exercise – and, in some cases, abuse – of power over them on a daily basis, namely, at work. And in a climate in which the “bad boss” is a widely-accepted archetype – as lamented in countless after-work venting sessions and portrayed in iconic films and comic strips – circumstances are conducive for the awareness that is sometimes avoided in the family setting to blossom when contemplating the relationship dynamics in one’s work experience.

To be certain, it is important – and surely Diamond and Conti both appreciate it – that people ultimately recognize ponerologic influences in other areas, including family and government. That’s why I’ve included among relevant resources that I’ve shared ones that assist them in doing that.

But by focusing on psychopathic contacts, including bosses, at work – much as Robert Hare and Paul Babiak do in their highly significant and pertinent book Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work – Diamond opens the door for his readers to, over time, make the necessary connections to become even more sufficiently ponerology-conscious.

The post that I came across is entitled “I am angry!” and, in it, Linda expresses her despair about the state of the world and the futility of placing hope in and comforting ourselves with small daily pro-sustainability lifestyle changes in the face of destructiveness on such a massive scale. Like many who have wrestled with this viewpoint, Linda appears to have been influenced by Derrick Jensen, since the post features an image of the graphic novel he produced along with Stephanie McMillan, As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Stay In Denial.

I was moved by what Linda was expressing in that post so I left a comment to share with her the idea that psychopathology may play a key role and to let her know about the field of ponerology, which has shed so much light on issues like this for me.

Linda responded right away with a comment that showed interest in those topics.

Then, a few weeks later, I got an email from Linda. She said my comment had thrown her off on a tangent looking into the ideas I had mentioned in the comment. She also said she was inspired to write an article about ponerology and how screening for psychopaths might improve workplaces, governments, the environment and the world at large. She wanted to interview me for this article.

A couple weeks after that I received a set of interview questions from Linda.

At that time, I was under the impression that Linda was writing an article for her blog that would just consist of the text of her questions and my responses. So I answered the questions at great length, thinking these would make up the bulk of her post. Only later, after I had responded, did I learn that she was actually writing a feature article for an Australian magazine called The Monthly, whose readers share an interest in law, politics and management.

Linda was then kind enough to share the early drafts of her article with me to get my feedback. As her editing process continued, though, it became clear to her that – perhaps because I had answered the questions having misunderstood their purpose or perhaps for other reasons – the information from the interview wasn’t well-suited to this particular article that she was writing, after all. However, since her questions had helped to surface some valuable information, we both agreed that it made sense for me to just post the interview, in its entirety, here on this blog.

As of this writing, Linda’s article is not yet published. If and when it is, I will link to it here.

So, without further adieu, here are Linda’s questions and my responses.

I’m not comfortable with the word ‘evil’.

Perhaps the deepest debate of all when it comes to the issue of “evil” – and you can tell that I agree that this is a debatable point by the fact that I, too, often put the word in quotes – is whether there is or is not any such thing objectively. People’s views fall all along the spectrum in regards to that question. At one extreme, we have some people who say there is no such thing as evil and, at the other extreme, we have those who are emphatic that evil exists and that denying it has terrible consequences (and that perhaps, in some cases, this denial itself even constitutes an evil act.)

I consider it one of the roles of ponerology to determine, to our best ability, whether there actually is any such objective thing as evil or there is simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil.’” I am not sure if we will ever be able to resolve that question or not, but striving to do so is one of ponerology’s defining tasks and, even if ultimately unsuccessful, the process of striving itself can bring great insight.

Regardless of whether you choose to use the word “evil” or not, we can find common ground around the concepts of:

• Activity that is malicious and…
• Activity that is willfully negligent despite an apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

With that being the case, those who take the stance that there is no actual evil, but simply “that which we often refer to as ‘evil,’” can still clearly see the importance and potential benefits of ponerologic study.

What is your definition of evil?

I don’t claim to have a scientifically supportable definition. Like I said, developing such an objectively-based definition for the word ‘evil’ – or concluding that there is no such supportable definition – is a task for ponerology. It may be one that we cannot succeed at for quite some time. And it may be that we never completely succeed at it.

In the meantime, I focus on these two main concepts.

• Malicious activity
• Willful negligence despite apparent risk of unnecessary harm or suffering

Whether you consider these activities evil or just think of the word ‘evil’ as a shorthand term that is often used to describe them and those who partake significantly in them, seeking to better understand them and their origins and devising optimal responses to their role in our world should keep us busy for quite some time.

Are psychopaths actually evil?

Without an objectively-supportable definition of the word ‘evil,’ this question cannot be answered precisely. However, what we can say with strong confidence is that psychopaths act maliciously and with potentially dangerous willful negligence quite frequently. Thus, they often pose a threat to those around them. Pragmatically, this is all we need to know to realize that the influence of psychopathy is an issue that deserves consideration. Philosophically, the debates about the semantic use of the word ‘evil’ and whether it applies to psychopaths – or anybody else – will carry on for some time.

Have you worked with psychopaths?

Given that psychopaths are estimated to make up 1% of the population – and, as suggested by some research, possibly even more in certain sectors of society such as on Wall Street – most people have probably worked with psychopaths at some point. However, it is not often that a psychopath will tell you that they are one (if they even know for sure themselves). In fact, they may spend much of their energy hiding that fact. So we usually will not know for sure whether someone is a psychopath or not. I’ve certainly worked with people who I would consider suspect. But definitively labeling someone a psychopath is not something that I would do without their having been tested by a qualified professional.

What methods are available that reliably diagnose psychopathy?

The best available method that I know of is the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) test devised by Robert Hare. I’ve written about diagnosis of psychopathy here.

Do you know of any examples where organisations or businesses have screened for psychopathy?

I know of examples where researchers came in and screened this way. For instance, Robert Hare studied people in high level management positions at Fortune 100 companies to find out about psychopathy in that population. He describes that work himself in an interview in the movie I Am Fishead: Are Corporate Leaders Egotistical Psychopaths? As I detail in my review of the film, I’m not a huge fan of the second and third parts of the movie. But the first part is a great introduction to this material and includes this interview in which Hare describes his research. You can see the interview here. It runs from 22:00 (I’ve linked to this starting point) through 24:55.

Hare and colleague Paul Babiak have also written about this topic at length in their book, Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work.

However, I’m not aware of organizations or businesses having such specific screening for psychopathy done of their own accord as a matter of policy. If anyone does know of such cases, I would like to hear about them. Whether such screening should be done, and, if so, how to make sure that it is done fairly and responsibly, are certainly among the very most important and controversial questions considered within the realm of ponerology.

Do you believe labeling people as either normals or psychopaths, as  Andrew Lobaczewski does in Political Ponerology, might be counterproductive? While he does urge that we do not discriminate or persecute psychopaths, this could easily happen regardless (or am I just stuck in political correctness, perhaps the means justifies the end?)

Ponerology is, by definition, a scientific field. So, like all scientific fields, it is concerned with categorizing accurately. The evidence seems to increasingly reveal psychopathy to be a neurological condition that differs significantly from the norm in deeply meaningful ways with quite serious implications. It seems unreasonable to ask scientists to pretend it isn’t a real or substantially abnormal condition simply because some people might use this information in harmful ways.

All scientific knowledge has the potential to be used for harm rather than help. If we restrict scientists to only categorizing knowledge based on whether we think the categories will be used in healthy ways by the public, we will reduce science to a public relations battle. This seems more dangerous than the alternative. What is very important, however, is making sure that science – in this area and others – is being carried out in accordance with the rigors of the scientific method and not being manipulated for the benefit of those with self-serving or potentially harmful agendas.

There is one thing worth noting that makes this case somewhat special. Using – or manipulating – scientific knowledge in order to persecute a group of people is itself something most likely to be carried out, or at least led, by those with reduced levels of empathy and conscience. Becoming aware of those with conditions that significantly reduce empathy and conscience and informed regarding the tactics they use gives us a much better chance to protect people – even psychopaths themselves – from the type of persecution you fear. When people of conscience bond on the basis of a conscious appreciation for their strong conscience itself, recognizing that there is a segment of the population that does not – and may never – share this trait, they can more passionately and effectively work toward solutions that are, on balance, healthiest for everyone involved. So, in this sense, accurately categorizing on this particular dimension, as opposed to some less ethically-relevant dimensions, could actually help reduce, rather than increase, persecution throughout society.

The incidence of psychopaths in the workplace is becoming reasonably well understood, but do you believe  psychopaths in positions of authority are having an impact on our environment, and our subsequent attempt to address climate change and other environmental issues?

I cannot say for sure whether or not psychopathy is significantly and detrimentally influencing our efforts regarding a sustainably healthy ecosystem and environment. But, given what we know, it is reasonable enough to suspect this could be the case that the question deserves serious study. One of the main reasons that I am so passionate about advocating for the firm establishment of ponerology as a respected field of study is so that more people can access a platform and the necessary resources to do just such work.

One of the benefits I’ve experienced from researching and writing about ponerology is that, in the process, I’ve come across people and related fields that I had not previously known about doing work on issues like this one. For example, a few months ago I learned about the field of Green Criminology, which studies the role criminal behavior plays in the process of environmental damage. One of the benefits of running a website dedicated to these issues is that I can then share this information with others, as I did in this feature on Green Criminology that I posted soon after learning about it.

If so, how can we, armed with an understanding of ponerology, deal with psychopathic influences?

Psychopathic influences can occur at all levels and in all facets of human systems and, in each of these, pose different quandaries that both call for and challenge our responses. Just to give some examples:

• At the family level, psychopaths can be abusive or neglectful partners or parents. So recognizing psychopathy and how it works might lead someone to make a different choice about becoming involved or staying involved in a romantic relationship. If they choose to leave, it may inform how they do so in order to be as safe as possible. It may help them understand the trauma undergone by themselves and their children during the period of exposure to the psychopath and to seek the most effective counseling to help them recover.
• In the workplace, an understanding of psychopathy could inform wiser hiring and firing decisions and help in ensuring that roles involving important ethical decisions are filled by those with empathy and conscience.
• At the community level, understanding psychopathy could affect our approach to crime. We might see efforts to prevent or reduce crime in a different light when we realize that a certain percent of the population fundamentally lacks empathy and conscience.
• At the political level, we recognize that it is crucial that those who make decisions deeply affecting the lives of thousands or even millions of people be capable of empathizing with those over whom they exercise this power. But we can only work to ensure this is the case when we become informed about the range of levels of empathy that exist in different human beings.
• At the most basic level, the very existence of the field of ponerology can help provoke people to recognize that these challenges even exist. And, as that recognition grows, its findings can help us better strategize in the pursuit of optimal solutions.

Lobaczewski’s experience at the university – the new lecturer espoused views that appear to influence a formerly benign group. Are we ‘normals’ to a greater or lesser extent, vulnerable to their influence?

I think that, when uneducated about ponerologic issues, ‘normals’ are indeed vulnerable. The vulnerability stems from the fact that we tend to assume, on a very deep level, that other people are fundamentally like us. We realize that they differ in more superficial ways such as gender, skin color, ethnicity, talents and skills and so on. But we assume that they all share the most basic human traits and abilities such as the capacity to experience pain and pleasure, sleep and waking, heat and cold and so on. Experiences like these are so basic as to seem elemental to what it means to be human.

Along the same lines, we assume that the capacities to empathize with others and to experience pangs of conscience are also elemental to being human. Yet psychopaths, while often pretending to experience these, may not actually do so. And, at the same time, they realize that ‘normals’ around them are under the impression that they do. And this is the misinformation gap, the area of ignorance, that they are often able to exploit.

If so, how does a psychopath influence others to behave against their ethical beliefs?

There are a number of tactics that psychopaths use in manipulating others. Lobaczewski talks about and names several of them in his book Political Ponerology. Just a few examples:

• Paralogisms – Particular manners of twisting logic to falsely make the
  illogical appear logical and vice-versa
• Paramoralisms – Specific methods of twisting morality to falsely portray the unethical as ethical and vice-versa
• The appropriation and exploitation of ideology

You’ll notice two things that these tactics have in common:

• They all involve the manipulative use of language. Psychopaths are often very skilled at employing language in ways that mislead and fool people. This is why Lobaczewski proposes the study of what he calls “patho-semantics” to help us recognize how certain forms of communication are used for deceptive and malicious purposes.
• They all work best when the person using them is assumed to have working capacities for empathy and conscience. If we understood or even strongly suspected that this person lacked such capacities, we would be much more guarded against these tactics and skeptical of them. But when we believe they are a person of conscience like ourselves – and, in fact, as we believe in our ignorance, like every human being – we are much more likely to be taken in by their ruse.

Of course, when these tactics alone don’t work, many psychopaths, lacking a conscience to restrict them, are not averse to using explicit or implicit threats or even brute force to get their way.

If an organisation wanted to screen for psychopaths are there legal ramifications? What would they need to do?

As I alluded to earlier, screening for psychopathy – like any form of screening – raises serious concerns about issues ranging from privacy to unfair discrimination. So, if it is done, it needs to be done with care by highly responsible and competent people. I am not expert in exactly how the law applies here, since I’m not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t very quickly be legal challenges as soon as anyone was refused a job or fired or forced to change positions as a result of being identified as a psychopath.

So I think it will be very important to involve legal experts, preferably with specialized training, ideally including education regarding ponerology itself, in developing any solutions in this area.

Having been interviewed numerous times myself I always wish they’d give me a completely open question. So here goes. What is the most important aspect of ponerology that you would like to share?

There are several important points I’d like to make that I don’t think have been raised in the rest of the interview.

1. Not all psychopaths are the same. Lobaczewski, in Political Ponerology, distinguishes several different types of psychopaths.
2. We have recently seen increased recognition regarding those who are not technically psychopaths, but share many of the same traits to a significant and troubling extent. These people are often referred to as “almost psychopaths.” Ronald Schouten, an M.D. and J.D. affiliated with Harvard Medical School, along with criminal defense attorney James Silver, has written a book about this subject called Almost a Psychopath: Do I (or Does Someone I Know) Have a Problem with Manipulation and Lack of Empathy? I covered this topic, a television news story about it and Schouten’s and Silver’s book on this blog post.
3. We have focused entirely on psychopathy here. But, as I emphasized in the title of one blog post, ponerology is not only about psychopathy.There are other conditions marked by significantly reduced levels of empathy and conscience that also play a role in the development of unhealthy systems. Lobaczewski’s name for a process by which human systems become pathological is ponerogenesis. And, in Political Ponerology, he goes into some detail about the various roles that his work revealed not only different types of psychopaths, but those with conditions besides psychopathy – as well as vulnerable normal people – to play in this process.

   I believe the other conditions most often involved are some of those that psychiatry has, for quite some time, classified as the Cluster B personality disorders, namely:

   • Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
   • Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
   • Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
4. Finally, I just want to say that, like many fields of science, but perhaps to an even greater extent than most, ponerology attracts its share of pseudoscientists – people who either speculate in a non-scientific manner on the material within its purview or take scientific findings that it has revealed and then twist and misuse them to serve an agenda. Since ponerology is a relatively new and unknown field, many people, when first investigating it, may come across the pseudoscientists first, recognize their work as not credible and then dismiss ponerology as a whole. This is a shame because there are also many very credible scientists in a variety of related disciplines doing fantastic and responsible work on these issues.

   I hope that people will not let the fact that some misappropriate the name and ideas of ponerology keep them from putting in the effort to learn about the solid and important work being done in this area. I try to encourage this effort by documenting the growing body of such critical work at PonerologyNews.com.

In addition, Kim is a writer whose bio states that she is a “former professor of languages” who was a Fulbright Scholar.

So I was quite curious when Kim let me know that she had written a new book dealing with the topic of narcissism and related themes about which we both feel strongly and was kind enough to send me a copy.

Things started off well very early on – in fact, before I even opened the envelope containing the book. Why? Check out this return address label that greeted me.

You can think and write about these issues for a long time before you come across something like that. It just reminded me all over again of how clever and insightful Kim’s work around these issues can be.

Then I opened the package to reveal the book and its title, The Sin of Omission.

This just continued the great start because this title reflects an aspect of ponerology that I have long felt it is important to emphasize. Those with reduced empathy can surely actively cause a great deal of harm. But, boy are they often also talented at strategically employing negligence to deviously enable suffering to arise while maintaining plausible deniability.

There are non-actions which, though most would deem them unethical, are nonetheless not illegal. Those who wish to do harm can engage – or, perhaps better said, willfully fail to engage – in them and rarely be held to account. They are the moral loopholes that empathy-reduced people masterfully and frequently exploit. Their existence is a problem that has long haunted me.

That haunting goes back even to my childhood. Agatha Christie’s famous novel Ten Little Indians tells the story of how a number of people who took advantage of these types of loopholes, causing suffering for which they had never been held responsible, were finally brought to a form of justice. I was assigned to read the book in middle school and, even at that young age, my life experience had already primed me in such a way that it hit me like a ton of bricks because I recognized so keenly and felt so strongly about this theme of people getting away with terribly unethical “sins of omission.”

Apparently many others also recognize and feel strongly about this theme because Ten Little Indians, which was first published under the title And Then There Were None, is one of the six best-selling single-volume books of all time, along with iconic works like A Tale of Two Cities, The Lord of the Rings, The Little Prince and The Hobbit.

Also, shortly before receiving Kim’s book in the mail, I had read Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. I wasn’t a big fan of most of it, but there was one quote in it about which I felt strongly enough to copy it down. It was the one where the Roman Emperor says:

“Very often an unjust act is done by not doing something, not only by doing something.”

Then I looked at the print-out of a blog post regarding the book which Kim had included in the package. It said:

“There is another ‘N’ word that is often associated with hate and conflict. But this word is not about race or class. This word has no social or economic boundaries.”

What a brilliant way of making the point that the word “narcissism,” which should be a well-understood household term, viewed as quite important and relevant because of how much damage the trait can cause in a family or any other system, instead often goes barely noticed or discussed. One mention of the better-known “N word” can end relationships and careers (and, ironically, it may well be that narcissism itself drives some of the people that do hatefully utter it.) But a lifetime of actually living out this “N word” often goes unrecognized or even rewarded.

I have long been emphasizing that divisions based on race, class, gender and other more superficial categories serve to distract us terribly from focusing on the far more important division in humanity between those with and without a significant level of conscience.

I then checked out the back of the book itself, which describes it as “An eye opening portrayal of family conflict, based on the author’s personal experiences growing up in a dysfunctional family.” While many people interested in ponerology focus on the social and political levels, most of us first experience harmful behavior in our families. Some, unfortunately, experience it there to a significant degree. I suspect that if you surveyed the growing community of those who have been drawn to ponerologic topics, you would find that, for many, the threads of that attraction can be traced directly back to personal family dynamics.

So, basically, before opening her book, I had the idea that it would boil down to Taylor revealing, in a sense, how her interest in the impact of and optimal responses to the harmful influence of those with reduced empathy is rooted in her own childhood experience. Specifically, I expected that she would delve into the lessons she learned about how such people insidiously operate, harming others through “crimes of omission” that are much easier to keep hidden than “crimes of commission.”

Then, I glanced at the table of contents, which lists the titles of the book’s ten chapters. Every single one of the chapter titles was either curiosity-piquing, quirky or both. They all grabbed my attention and made me eager to delve into Taylor’s world.

And so I began reading.

Getting Personal

Those who write about ponerologic topics, even though I believe many, if not most, of us have both academic and personal interest in them, seem to fall into two rough categories:

1. Those who write very openly about their own personal experiences involving the influence of those with low empathy and conscience
2. Those who, even if they have been personally affected by the influence of those with low empathy and conscience, choose to keep their personal stories – especially the specific names and behaviors of other people they know – private, sticking with writing about ponerology from a more general perspective

The Sin of Omission proves Kim Taylor to fall decidedly in the former category. And how.

The book tells the story of her narcissistic brother, Tim, her enabling father and family system and the damage and pain that emerges from this mix. But it doesn’t just tell the story. It airs the family’s dirty laundry in the most open way. In this book, Taylor vents to the world the kind of frustration that most people in these situations save for their diaries or their close friends.

Just as one example of how personal the book gets:

There is one point at which Taylor explains that there is a letter she has wanted to send to her mother-in-law regarding her brother and his wife, but that she has not sent it because she feels too uncomfortable. So what has she done? Instead, she has published the letter in the book.

This level of openness led to mixed feelings for me.

On one hand, I felt almost uncomfortable with it. The book is so revealing that I wondered if the motive behind its writing might be something like revenge through exposure. And, as we’ll discuss at the end of this piece, there is some reason to consider that – perhaps even justly – it is.

On the other hand, I was also able to view her openness as an attempt at several worthwhile goals:

• Catharsis – Short of any effective way to find justice, and realizing that we are “only as sick as our secrets,” the book may serve as a way to at least express mourning, convey a visceral sense of how dramatic, chaotic and painful the drama of a dysfunctional family touched by personality disorders can be, and have her story actually witnessed. I imagine embodying her experiences and putting them out into the world in this book is a weight off Taylor’s chest.
• Understanding – The writing of the book may be part of Kim’s process of seeking answers. As I read, I could just feel her struggling with the painful questions that gnaw at many people of healthy conscience who find themselves in such a system.
  • Why does the narcissist act this way?
  • Why are others enabling the narcissist and suppressing attempts to restrain their abuses rather than aiding and comforting their victims?
  • How did these people become the type of people who would be willing and able to play these roles?
• Helping Others – The book is a cautionary tale.

Exploring the Dynamics of Reduced Empathy and Affected Family Systems

In The Sin of Omission, Kim Taylor touches on or delves into a number of aspects of conditions of reduced empathy and the workings of families in which a member has one. Those who have been in such a situation may relate to many of them.

Manipulative Tactics & Con Artistry

Kim explains some of the “tricks of the trade” that the empathy-reduced person uses to manipulate those around them. One entire chapter is devoted to talking about the time her brother fell victim to an even more skilled scammer than himself. She uses that story to branch out into a broader discussion of con artistry in general.

This discussion is based on her own research on the subject. I found this to exemplify a pattern I’ve noticed. It seems like often, once a victim of a pathological person or system comes to see through the veil of ponerologic conditions, they work to become expert on subjects related to con artistry so as to be able to protect themselves from being duped again. They may even take great pride in their newfound savvy and ability to detect deception and teach others to do so.

Jekyll and Hyde

Taylor offers the phrase “street angel, house devil,” one that her mother used, as a way of conveying how those with pathologies of conscience can charm so many people in the outside world who never see the abusive, cruel sides of them that they so openly display at home.

Vulnerabilities of the Codependent

She discusses the kinds of wounds and defense mechanisms that those with reduced empathy exploit in vulnerable codependent types of people.

The Generational Ripple Effect of Abuse & Neglect

One of the main themes of this book is how one sin – even a sin of omission – can have a deep impact, setting the stage for dysfunction to flourish for generations to come.

We often hear about how personality disorders themselves result from this generational process. But here Taylor focuses on how the aforementioned wounds and defense mechanisms that underlie the enabling behaviors of the other people around the personality-disordered person also result from this same process.

Early in the book, she tells the tale of her widower grandfather’s abandonment of his children – including her father – during the Great Depression. She goes on to reveal how this first sin facilitated a chain reaction of others, like the one carried out by a priest at the orphanage to which her abandoned father was relegated – a supposedly highly moral man – that shattered her father’s self-esteem forever. She speculates on how these early experiences of loss, abuse and neglect led her father to project his own need for care, driving him to compensate by fervently caring for others, especially the very types of people who would take advantage of him – people like his own exploitative brother and Kim’s narcissistic brother, his son.

Kim asks:

“Was it his experience at the orphanage of overdiscipline and physical abuse that made him too tolerant of a son whose behavior throughout life would be far too risk-taking for his own good? If there is a tragic flaw in all of this, that is certainly it. The orphanage might be the reason behind dad’s inability to correct a son whose narcissism ruled him.”

She contrasts her own early experience learning about the concept of reciprocity with her father’s lack of insight into its importance and compliance to those who manipulated him as a result.

How Systemic Enabling Amplifies Consequences

Kim mentions that not only did her father’s projection lead him to be compliant, but it led him to expect others to be so, as well. As a result of such a dynamic, much of the rest of the family joins in with the enabling. In her case, her mother discouraged any criticism, preferring to “keep the peace.” One of her younger brothers, who also had a vulnerable personality, became prey, at times, to the con artistry.

Eventually, any healthy limits keeping the personality-disordered person in check are discouraged and shut down. For example, Kim’s maternal grandfather tried to step in and correct Tim’s behavior for his own good and that of society. But rather than gratitude, her family responded by undermining his efforts.

It is at this point that the disordered behavior can really go off the rails.

Blocking of Family Intimacy

When some family members deny and refuse to address another family member’s personality disorder, this creates an inevitable tension and distance between them and the ones who are conscious about it. Kim talks about how the atmosphere surrounding her disordered brother prevented her from having a closer relationship with her father and, worse, how she blamed herself for that. She explains that “When one party shuts down or shuts a door because that person is not able to deal with truth and openness, it is frustrating for the other.” And in the letter to her mother-in-law she says, “It is a shame…when families end up fragmented because of one person’s disorders.”

The Extra Pain of Family Crises

Kim talks about the terrible experience of having to handle her father’s death and the decisions associated with it and its aftermath while dealing with such a difficult family system.

“Water to a Fish”

Taylor describes a key phenomenon – that, no matter how extreme, the dysfunction of our family systems often remains invisible to us when we are young since it is all we know. It is only later that life may somehow help us gain perspective and, when it does, it comes as an epiphany.

The Sickly Intriguing Nature of These Patterns

The book discusses, and, indeed, exhibits, how narcissistic-codependent types of relationships play out in toxic, yet fascinating, patterns. Once one finally does recognize them, it can become almost an obsession to study them, and it can prove difficult to look away.

Connection to Similar Patterns on Higher Social Levels

In Political Ponerology, Andrew M. Lobaczewski starts by explaining how those with pathologies of conscience can take over nations. He then goes on to show how similar, mutually reinforcing patterns play out as families and communities are corrupted, as well.

In The Sin of Omission, Taylor works in the other direction. After focusing on the patterns within her family in depth, she touches on how these mirror patterns of dependency and unsustainability at higher levels.  For instance, on page 18, she states:

“It is much like the ongoing bail-out situation related to economic crisis in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

Comparison to the Work of Barbara Oakley

Given the topic and approach of the book, I couldn’t help but compare The Sin of Omission to the work of another author that is very significant to me.

One of the most important books I’ve ever read is Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend by Barbara Oakley. Oakley, like Taylor, is a writer on the topic of pathologies of conscience who, as the full title of that book suggests, also opens up in her writing in a very personal way about her own family issues. In Evil Genes, she share stories of and examines her experience in a family that included a sister who she describes as exhibiting a combination of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and psychopathy as a means by which to consider these and related conditions. The Sin of Omission, full of stories about Taylor’s brother’s behavior and how the rest of the family responded and was affected, is in this tradition to some extent.

Oakley’s next work – Cold-Blooded Kindness: Neuroquirks of a Codependent Killer, or Just Give Me a Shot at Loving You, Dear, and Other Reflections on Helping That Hurts – focused on the flip side of the exploitative relationship, what she calls pathological altruism. (She also edited this well-received scholarly book explicitly about that subject.) And The Sin of Omission, as much as it is about narcissists themselves, is also a book about this crucial complementary aspect of the dysfunctional cycle. For, though she never uses and may not even be familiar with the term, Taylor’s thesis is that her father’s treatment in the orphanage transformed him into a pathological altruist, all too eager to extend himself in support of narcissistic manipulators and exploiters. She also explains how her own husband has kept her from falling into what she calls the “trap of ‘empathy’” of which narcissists take advantage.

However, while they share much in these ways, there are also some differences between Taylor’s work in this book and Oakley’s.

1. Oakley uses her personal family stories as jumping off points from which to delve very deeply into the hard science behind conditions of reduced empathy and conscience. Taylor doesn’t delve into the science very much at all, sticking primarily with the personal perspective. When she does veer off a bit, it’s to discuss something more humanities-oriented, like how narcissism has served as an archetype of evil in religious and historical representations, not to consider the relevant scientific evidence and research.
2. That first difference has implications for the philosophical angle taken. The scientific emphasis leads Oakley to focus more on the genetic, neurological and other biological aspects of these disorders. The Sin of Omission focuses more on the influence of childrearing. I have little doubt that both authors realize the importance of both of these angles and their interconnection. But, nonetheless, they come at this subject matter differently.
3. Oakley’s books are quite long and dense. The Sin of Omission is a short 67 pages and can easily be read in one sitting.
4. Oakley’s writing is of extremely high quality. The Sin of Omission is not nearly as eloquent in style.
5. Oakley’s writing is highly-structured and well-organized. The Sin of Omission is rambling and sometimes even chaotic.

I make this last point not simply to put down Taylor’s book. For the rambling, perhaps, is appropriate here, serving, intentionally or not, a purpose. It matches the emotional tone of that the book conveys.

While Oakley examines her family history in Evil Genes, Taylor, in this book, expresses the frustration and anger of being stuck in her family in a more visceral way. Oakley explains, seeming, for the most part, to have come to terms with her experience and to be writing as she looks back at it with perspective. Taylor rants, pouring out the exasperation generated by a seemingly never-ending ordeal of having to put up with what she aptly calls an “upside down relationship.” It is not always coherent, not always linear, not always structured or organized. But this is because it is not just a writing, but a release of grief. For she appears, as she writes, to still be in the throes of that grief and it comes across as anger and depression in search of acceptance.

So while The Sin of Omission will not win a Nobel Prize in Literature, if you have any experience with situations like Taylor’s or want to gain some insight into how devastating such situations can be, you can get a sense of it through her writing.

Both Oakley’s and Taylor’s perspectives, though different, offer something valuable that can help others.

Broadening the Perspective

Another interesting thing about Taylor’s version of her story is that it shows how the particular way that we come into contact with and are affected by certain issues can color how we view them and shape the conclusions we draw about them. As a result of her specific experiences, Taylor expresses a couple of conclusions that she has reached that I’d like to put into a broader perspective.

Parent/Child Personality-Disordered/Enabler Orientations

It’s clear that Taylor recognizes the ethical loophole upon which Ten Little Indians was based and that has haunted me for so many years. At one point she says:

“There are crimes that occur that are punishable by law and then there are crimes on a smaller scale not punishable by law but nonetheless unethical. They are committed against our families, our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues, our brothers and sisters…”

But then she finishes that quote with…

“…and especially grievous from a standpoint of moral values are those that dishonor our mothers and our fathers.”

I found it striking that she never so explicitly addressed the case that many other people experience in which a disordered parent abuses, exploits or neglects the children. I think many would say that that case is even more grievous than when a disordered child dishonors the parents, who are at least adults and better equipped to protect themselves from and withstand such behavior.

In fact, when I first heard about her book, I simply assumed the story would be about a narcissistic parent that hurt her. I was actually surprised to find that it was primarily about a narcissistic sibling who hurt her parents. This is also a worthwhile story to tell. But Taylor seems to believe the latter is the more archetypal story from which to draw lessons.

Each of our experiences colors what we see as most grievous. Taylor watched painfully as her parents were manipulated and she generalized from that experience. But it can be just as painful and damaging, if not worse, when the parent is the disordered person rather than the enabler.

The Range of Empathy-Reducing Conditions

Often, people are first affected by or learn about one particular empathy-reducing condition and then, since the various conditions with this effect can look alike, begin labeling all empathy-reduced people with that one condition. I wonder if this happened to Taylor. Perhaps, having first become familiar with narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), and not having necessarily studied related conditions, she conflates all empathy-reducing conditions under the rubric of narcissism.

As I read, I frequently wondered if the brother being described as a narcissist is actually a psychopath. There are a number of signs that point to this possibility, including the stark terms in which Taylor describes her brother’s “evil,” not the least part of which is his markedly parasitic lifestyle, one of the hallmarks of psychopathy tested for as part of Factor 2 of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. At one point, she compares him to Bernie Madoff, claiming that Madoff represents the epitome of narcissism. But many actually believe that Madoff, while certainly a narcissistic person, is actually a prime example of white-collar psychopathy.

We obviously cannot diagnose her brother on the basis of just the stories in this book. But it is worth considering that not all people of low conscience have NPD. Some have Borderline Personality Disorder. Some are psychopaths. A proper diagnosis is important because these disorders, while overlapping in some ways, are also, in other ways, quite different.

There is actually one place in which Taylor does consider another diagnosis for her brother. In the letter to her mother-in-law she speculates that he may be bipolar. But she never mentions the possibility of him having one of the other empathy-reducing conditions besides narcissism. And she never really mentions psychopathy at all.

Conclusion

Millions of families struggle with the types of issues that arise when members with certain empathy-reducing personality disorders generate destructive drama and other family members, or the family system overall, consistently enable them. Each has its own tale. But most of these tales will never be told, at least not publicly.

There is enormous discouraging pressure and stigma associated with exposing such family secrets. Derrick Jensen, another writer who very openly and powerfully exposes family secrets in his work, often quotes famed psychiatrist R.D. Laing’s three rule of a dysfunctional family:

• Rule A is Don’t.
• Rule A.1 is Rule A does not exist.
• Rule A.2 is Never discuss the existence or nonexistence of Rules A, A.1, or A.2.

For better or worse, Kim Taylor decided to break these rules and “spill the beans” to the world. Her personal frustrations, born of being the caring person – one whose very life has become committed to Fair Play – in a family affected by a highly-enabled narcissist have been published.

It is unnerving. The Sin of Omission reveals the kinds of family conversations that most people dwell on privately and never share with everybody else. The eighth chapter of the book is entitled “Those are the Sacrifices You Make for Family.” Often, secrecy is one of the ultimate sacrifices made in dysfunctional families.

But Taylor has refused to make that sacrifice anymore. She waited until her parents were gone to do so. But her brother, Tim, is still alive.

Yet, if we are ever to really see clearly what is happening in our culture and our systems, conversations like these will have to be exposed to disinfecting sunlight. We see it happening with leaks at other levels of human systems. And Taylor’s book is, in a sense, a whistleblower leak of her family secrets.

It is hard to know for sure what the truth is in situations like this. Family dynamics are complex and one is hesitant to make a final judgment without hearing everyone’s story. But, at the same time, this careful deliberative approach, if it leads to too great a hesitancy to make decisions, is something empathy-reduced people can sometimes exploit.

I cannot definitively say exactly what really happened in Taylor’s family. But I can confidently say that what she describes happens in families every day causing untold pain and suffering, often with the most undeserving suffering the most.

I loved the idea of Narcissist cologne and a company based on the concept of Fair Play. Having read Taylor’s book and been granted a view into her experience of her family, I now have a much better insight regarding why she became so personally passionate about these endeavors and the issues that they involve in the first place.

The motive behind this book, and perhaps much of Taylor’s life and work, became most clear to me when she explained:

“Tim’s anger was always turned outward rather than inward. He chose from among those closest to him as a target for this anger. More often than not, he chose to target me both verbally and physically. He saw me as a competitor. I was a threat to him because of my abilities and accomplishments.”

It is in light of a comment like this that the book could be interpreted as an attempt at revenge. But, if you really consider this statement, it is a deeply tragic one. You can empathize with Taylor’s agony at being a good kid, doing her best to be a caring person and, nonetheless, being abused by an envious Machiavellian sibling.

And, worse, hidden in those words, is the pain that inheres in the question “Why didn’t my parents protect me from him?” Her parents’ indulgence of their empathy-reduced son left their daughter vulnerable. This is the central recent sin of omission that we can trace all the way back to her grandfather’s original sin of abandoning his children. It is an archetypal example of how those of healthy conscience so often pay the price when those with pathologies of conscience are not held accountable or even identified as such. That rank injustice is what is so unconscionable to those who have a conscience to care.

As Kim says, “There is nothing like paying for others’ mistakes.”

The ultimate lesson of The Sin of Omission might be summed up when Taylor points out that children need a healthy balance of discipline and freedom and that that healthy balance must be determined not in a formulaic way, but taking into account a particular child’s ability to self-monitor. We must incorporate individual differences in these assessments. But, whether because an empathy-reduced parent cannot read and reflect back to a child properly or because an empathy-reduced child is not recognized and appropriately adjusted to by a misguided or naïve parent, this process too often fails. And, when it does, as Taylor’s book shows – cries out about, in fact – the ripple effect of suffering can be tremendous.

A new study, described in the Vancouver Sun, touches on this interplay between ideology/religion (in this case, specifically religion) and harmful activity.

The study, led by Volkan Topalli, a criminal justice professor at Georgia State University, was published in an article entitled “With God on My Side: The Paradoxical Relationship Between Religious Belief and Criminality Among Hardcore Street Offenders” in the journal Theoretical Criminology.

Topalli and his co-researchers “found that through ‘purposeful distortion or genuine ignorance,’ hardcore criminals often co-opt religious doctrine to justify or further their crimes.”

I like the word “co-opt” as it really captures the smooth, devious way that dangerous people can assume a doctrine of, say, love and compassion, re-process it and then convincingly promote it in a creatively altered form as a rationale for destructiveness.

In interviews, the study’s subjects demonstrated precisely how they had selectively accepted and twisted various religious teachings in order to reconcile them with their criminal behavior.

Topalli points out that this has implications for the role of faith-based programs often provided to prisoners, since some of those prisoners, rather than internalizing the healthy messages embedded within the religious teachings, will instead simply manipulate the material to further support their criminality. This mirrors the way (as I explained here) that psychopaths, treated with traditional therapeutic approaches that may cultivate empathy and compassion in others, may instead simply observe and learn from their therapists and fellow group participants how to become even more skilled manipulators and exploiters. This is why Robert Hare, world expert on psychopathy, has desperately advocated that certain pathological prisoners not be treated in the same groups or with the same methods that are applied with their fellow inmates.

Topalli’s study concluded with a recommendation that faith-based prison programs not be relied upon alone as a primary deterrent to repeat offending.

Are there any biological markers by which we can identify people likely to harm others?

For example, as Dylan Stableford of Yahoo News puts it:

Can you spot evil in an X-ray?

Stableford’s article, entitled “‘Dark Patch’ Visible in Brain Scans of Killers and Rapists, Neurologist Claims,” tells of University of Bremen neurologist Dr. Gerhard Roth’s claim that, indeed, we can.

In fact, Roth claims to have identified “the region of the brain where evil is formed and where it lurks.”

Roth, who studied violent convicted offenders on behalf of the German government, consistently found a dark mass – which he calls an “evil patch” – near the front of the brain on the X-rays of those with violent criminal records.

Some find it difficult to believe that harmful behavior can often be traced to brain deficiencies. To them, Roth points out – as I have also pointed out in my writing – that conditions like psychopathy, marked by callousness and aggression, can be mimicked by clearly organic neurological conditions such as precisely located brain tumors. To further reinforce the point, Roth describes how in some of these cases, once the tumor is removed, the person’s behavior returns to normal.

If we can accept that a tumor or other injury in a certain location in the brain can have such an effect – and I believe that most of us can – then why should it be hard to believe that a similar effect can be observed in someone with a deficiency in that same brain area due to some other cause, whether genetic or developmental?

To date, I haven’t heard anyone bold enough to claim that we can predict with 100% certainty that someone will act out in violent or harmful ways just from their brain scan. But, in this article, Roth is quoted as saying that he can predict with 66% probability that a young person with “developmental disorders in the lower forehead brain” will become a felon.

The article also references Dr. Kent Kiehl, a psychologist at University of Mexico, who is somewhat known within ponerology circles for his work studying brain scans of psychopaths. And it links to Jennifer Kahn’s extremely thought-provoking article, “Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?” which caused a stir when published in the New York Times last year.

As of this writing, Stableford’s piece has inspired over 3300 comments in just four days since its publication – once again reinforcing how drawn people are to dialogue about ponerologic topics and their profound implications.

I found it remarkably coincidental that, at that very point in our discussion, Yahoo’s homepage happened to be featuring the story highlighted in the image below.

This is not the first time a story of this kind has been prominently featured in the news in recent years. In fact, the frequency with which it seems to be happening has added some validation to my sense of how crucial a topic this is and helped confirm my suspicion that my own dedication of time and energy to learning and writing about it is part of a growing awareness about it in the world as a whole. Each time I witnessed the release of another article or news story or book representing that growing awareness, my desire to document this dynamic and catalog these examples grew.

Seeing this story featured on Yahoo at such a coincidental time in the midst of a discussion with a friend on that very topic rekindled my desire to create a resource to carry out this documentation.

Noticing that the story was going to be about a “psychologist’s book,” I assumed this would be another article – adding to a recent flood of such articles – about Kevin Dutton’s book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths. But when I clicked through and found out it was actually about yet another new book related to ponerology, this was the last nudge I needed to finally create this site.

The headline actually links to the video below and discusses research described in the book Office Politics, which is the latest from the British psychologist Oliver James. James is also the author of Affluenza. Since I have long promoted many of the ideas featured in – and implied by the title of – Affluenza, I was further validated that James’ path, just like mine, has led from concern about those topics to awareness of the role played by these ponerologic issues and the importance of educating people about them.

The video is actually a segment of the “Broken News Daily – a ridiculous take on the headlines” and has a comic tone to it, even as it describes very important information. It also alludes to the comedy film Horrible Bosses, jokingly modifying the title to Psycho Bosses. I think it’s great that information related to ponerology, so often delivered in a serious fire-and-brimstone tone, also be, at times, promoted with some levity. There is a long history of comedy helping make the medicine of potentially disturbing but crucial information go down easier.

The segment focuses on James’ message that an increasing number of white collar workers are displaying traits associated with the “dark triad” – a term referring to psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism – and his identification of what he calls the “triadic person” who displays a combination of traits associated with all three and often ascends the hierarchy in work organizations

Judging from the comments on the piece, the segment seems to have done a great job stirring up discussion and a lot of people relate to the concept of authority figures with psychopathological traits.