In The Sociopath at the Breakfast Table, the authors describe an incident or exchange involving a sociopath as a sociopathic transaction. Here’s the typical arrangement:
- Sociopath — the one with the personality disorder.
- Empath — an individual who is highly perceptive, insightful and sensitive to another’s emotions.
- Apath — someone who is apathetic and likely to do the sociopath’s bidding.
This threesome is required for a sociopathic transaction to be effective and it usually unfolds something like this: On seeing the sociopath say or do something underhanded, the empath is forced to make a stand. The empath challenges the sociopath, who throws others off the scent by shifting the blame to the empath. The empath becomes an object of abuse when the apath corroborates the sociopath’s perspective. Ultimately, the situation usually ends badly for the empath, and sometimes also for the apath (if his conscience comes back to haunt him or subsequently he becomes an object of abuse himself). The sociopath often gets off scot-free and can continue to abuse with impunity.
- The Relationship Between Empaths and Narcissists
- Empaths are Targets
- The Apath
- The Empath Strikes Back
Reblogged this on relationshitexit and commented:
Speak up !!
Just WOW. You don’t really realize how bad it was until you are out of it.
I don’t even care that he’s attempting to make me look like the bad person. What really sucks though, is he knew I was in an abusive relationship before. The fact that (as he said) he would never put his hands on me in anger, is irrelevant and also untrue. The emotional damage is far beyond any physical damage. He also used that to justify his physical abuse. 😦
Should, could and would the world be better without, or is an element of the psychopath being missed, do the each of the components require the other to even be.
There is no doubt in my mind the world would be better without psychopaths. They are the bane of humanity.