The Varieties of Predatory Experience

Capabilities and values as differentiators among persistent predatory personalities

We’ve now covered the attributes and tactics from Karen Mitchell’s persistent predatory personality (PPP) model. This post rounds out the model with a number of differentiators. In other words, these items are not diagnostic, because they will manifest differently in dark personalities (DPs) on an individual basis.

I found this to be the most interesting and unexpected aspect of the PPP model, because it solves so many problems and does it so economically. The problem with many of the existing models is that they do the equivalent of adding an IQ cutoff to the diagnosis of psychopathy. If you define psychopathy as having a possible IQ of 85 at most, and no higher, anyone with all the same psychopathic traits but with even a slightly higher IQ will not be diagnosed.

In the case of many of the DP tests (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, etc.), what Mitchell argues are in fact differentiators are considered basic features. Hare’s PCL-R, for instance, includes items such as “parasitic lifestyle,” “poor behavioral controls,” “lack of realistic, long-term goals,” “impulsivity,” “irresponsibility,” “many short-term marital relationships,” and “criminal versatility.” According to the PPP model, these are simply descriptors of the capabilities of low-functioning PPPs. Lack of those features alone is enough to bring a perfect PCL-R score of 40 down to 26, which is below the cutoff point of 30 for a diagnosis. This implies that the PCL-R is simply a test for low-functioning psychopathy and not psychopathy (or PPP) per se.

For the following capabilities, Mitchell first describes how they manifest in a lower-functioning DP, followed by higher-functioning. I’ve culled further descriptions from the practitioner quotations she includes with each item.

Capabilities

1. Planning and goal setting

Impulsively harms and controls. Unrealistic about their potential to accomplish goals.

Low-functioning (LF) PPPs lack impulse control. They’re poor at planning, act without thinking through the consequences, and often target victims on a whim or at the first opportunity.

Sets goals. Develops and executes detailed plans to achieve goals involving gamesman-like precision. Possesses an uncanny ability to anticipate how others will behave many steps ahead. Can change approach disconcertingly.

One of the participants told Mitchell: “It’s a targeted, strategic plan to get children in their [pedophiles’] arena, and also to gain the respect and trust of the community.” High-functioning (HF) PPPs are in full control, have clear objectives, plan patiently and in great detail, and are calculated in their decisions, not random. They achieve their goals “slowly and insidiously.”

2. Emotion emulation and persona creation

Low ability to effectively emulate emotions and develop complex, convincing multiple personas.

LF PPPs’ attempts to convey emotions are often humorously inadequate and obviously superficial. One participant related one such experience: “His efforts to demonstrate such emotions fell completely flat. In other words, even when he tried to show that he cared, was completely unconvincing in that regard.”

Exceptional ability to emulate different emotions and create realistic ‘personas’ that seem authentic.

By contrast, HF PPPs’ personas are “deeply complex,” having been worked on and refined for years. Their masks are completely convincing. They can be well spoken and refined, with a sense of gravitas.

3. Presentation of competence

Overplays self. Self-aggrandizing. May talk about themselves in relation to religious figures or superheroes.

LF PPPs have an overly inflated and unrealistic sense of their own competence, which they attempt to relay to others through boasting, exaggeration, display of confidence, or claiming achievements and accomplishments which either don’t exist or are stolen from others.

Underplays self. Downplays their intelligence and achievements.

HF PPPs are subtler, not concerned with having others recognize their competence, and in fact may go so far as to present as either self-effacing or less competent than they actually are. “They hide that, they don’t need to share it with anyone at all [e.g. even on an anonymous survey].” They don’t brag or mention what they’re up to.

4. Focus and purpose

Easily loses interest, no real focus.

“No realistic life plans.” “Lacks stability.” “Numerous children with multiple partners, but taking no parental role for any of them.”

Unrelenting attention to personal purpose. A focus which is more profoundly compelling than tenacity.

“Relentless, unabating focus and drive to establish themselves that does not appear to respond to or return outside emotional feedback.”

5. Funding of lifestyle

Parasitic lifestyle.

“They are using everyone in their life. Once they have used them for what they need in a particular time, they move on.”

Self-funded lifestyle. May earn money from a legitimate source such as employment, however they still manifest behaviours which emanate from attributes such as deviousness.

“Good at their job and may win awards and/or be promoted into roles of seniority.” Lobaczewski thought psychopaths’ had certain intellectual limits, but were able to achieve positions of status and authority: “this group does not contain instances of the highest intelligence, nor do we find technical or craftsmanship talents among them. The most gifted members of this kind may thus achieve accomplishments in those sciences which do not require a correct humanistic worldview or technical skills. (Academic decency is another matter, however.)”

6. Self-protection

May groom people to support them but lack a highly committed group who are willing to stand up for them in all circumstances.

Has a well-groomed group of staunch supporters who act as henchmen, running interference for them. This group could be within a family, within an organisation or within any community.

7. Retention of freedom

More likely to use overt forms of harm and control such as physical violence and to break laws in obvious ways.

More likely to use covert, sophisticated forms of harm and control which produce limited evidence and are often not addressed in law. Are more readily able to defend their position of freedom.

Participants described this as being “cautious about breaking the law only so far” and “pushing boundaries,” such that their behavior was either minimized and dismissed, or unlikely even to result in complaints or charges being filed. Lobaczewski, when describing the patients he analyzed in the course of his work as a psychologist, wrote:

The type of harm they did to others varied greatly, from emotionally hurtful behavior and slander, physical and sexual abuse of a child, to physical injury and murder. … Some 30 of them had been subjected to penal measures … Others had escaped punishment because they had hurt their fellows in a manner which does not qualify for judicial treatment under legal theory or practice.

Values

The values don’t distinguish between lower and higher functioning, but between whether or not the PPP in question considers it important.

Wealth

Money is great to have but not necessarily a key focus. The ability to control takes a greater priority.

Avaricious. Completely driven to accumulate money and all the trappings that go with it.

In other words, it’s not always about greed. Sometimes it’s simply about control.

Attention from others

Enjoys the attention of others and is outspoken.

“Life of the party.” “Garrulous.” “Center of attention.” “Loud.” “Brags about accomplishments.” This description was a gem: “Manipulating policies and so on to gain more than they should, and then often bragging about it afterwards as though they had discovered some kind of secret code that other people hadn’t figured out, when in reality others just weren’t doing it because they thought it was wrong.” This seems to me to be an expression of extraversion. I wouldn’t be surprised if those on this end of this spectrum are more likely to be diagnosed with narcissistic or histrionic personality disorder.

Prefers not to be the centre of attention and is more quietly spoken.

Those who don’t value attention of this sort seem more introverted, “rarely yell,” appear “studious and quiet,” have a calm demeanor, and speak softly, yet may have violent outbursts in private.

Status

Does not require status. Control and domination are often the primary focus.

Status is very important and is seen as something that provides more potential for control, power, and domination.

Some PPPs will “deliberately keep out of the limelight” to avoid being exposed, while others actively seek status. (They may prefer to play the role of éminence grise in politics, for example.) “Ruthless approach to personal self-aggrandisement and self-advancement.” “Her children were a reflection of her, they had to perform, or they were belittled and treated differently.”

Viewed as reliable

Cannot be depended on.

Can be depended on, however this is only within the context of the attributes.

Legacy

Does not apply egocentricity in creating something they can be remembered and admired for.

Applies egocentricity in creating something they can be remembered and admired for.

Halls, schools, hospitals, statues, charities, having their face on the ¥100 banknote…

---

I was pleasantly surprised to see Mitchell write this on the subject of the existing DP models: “This plethora of models ‘plays’ to people of DP who thrive on confusion as it allows them to engage in their nefarious activities more readily without being identified.” This is exactly the point Lobaczewski made about such models in communist countries last century. This is how he put it:

The essence of psychopathy may not, of course, be researched or elucidated [in a pathocracy]. Sufficient darkness is cast upon this matter by means of an intentionally devised definition of psychopathy which includes various kinds of character disorders, together with those caused by completely different and known causes. This definition must be memorized not only by every lecturer in psychopathology, psychiatrist, and psychologist, but also by some political functionaries with no education in that area. To betray advanced knowledge in this field arouses immediate suspicion. … One might admire how the definition of psychopathy mentioned above effectively blocks the ability to comprehend phenomena covered therein.

Confused definitions keep people confused, which is at least partially intentional. It allows the high-functioning psychopaths to maintain their masks without fear of exposure. The greatest trick the HF PPP ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

Conflating different phenomena, as in Lobaczewski’s example, achieves this goal. Differentiating them untangles the knot. On this, Mitchell observes: “The data from this research suggest there is a group of people who actively violate social norms and harm and disadvantage others but who are not of DP.” Names for individuals in this group include: sociopath, vulnerable narcissist, secondary psychopath, and ASPD (antisocial personality disorder). They may engage in “lying, manipulation, cruelty, and harming others,” but they “have a moral compass and a conscience and are not intrinsically deeply malevolent.”

She quotes other researchers who speculate that this may be “environmental” as opposed to hereditary in nature, and curable. Mitchell continues:

The data also include comments such as ‘extreme sensitivity to mild/constructive criticism,’ which suggests vulnerability. That is, while there is only one form of DP, there is a group of people who exhibit similar behaviours, but this group experience emotions such as shame and are often open to and able to change.

Lobaczewski was of the same mindset, calling such variations “characteropathies” (when the cause was due to organic brain tissue damage) and “sociopathies” (when caused by traumatic upbringing).

---

Now that we have the entire model presented, I want to compare it to the PCL-R (Hare’s psychopathy checklist). Below are the checklist’s twenty items, each of which is followed by what I consider its PPP parallel. I’ve divided the PCL-R items according to how they correlate in factor analysis as four facets. These four facets group into two larger factors (interpersonal/affective, lifestyle/antisocial):

Interpersonal

• Item 1: Glibness/superficial charm

  • [attribute 11: “cultivates facade of normal” and attribute 12: “chameleon-like”; expression of LF capability 2: “emotion emulation and persona creation”]

• Item 2: Grandiose sense of self-worth

  • [attribute 2: “self-view of superior and special”; expression of LF capability 3: “presentation of competence”]

• Item 4: Pathological lying

  • [attribute 13: “dishonest”]

• Item 5: Conning/manipulative

  • [attribute 14: “devious and manipulative”]

This facet includes 4 of the 5 attributes (11-14) in group 3 of the PPP (“the truth is not easy to distinguish”), and one (2) from group 1 (“they drive the agenda”). The missing fifth group-3 attribute is “unwillingness to accept responsibility for negative impacts they cause,” which is included in the next PCL-R facet. It also includes two low-functioning capabilities.

Affective

• Item 6: Lack of remorse or guilt

  • [attribute 18: “unremorseful”]

• Item 7: Shallow affect

  • [attribute 16: “without authentic emotion”]

• Item 8: Callous/lack of empathy

  • [attribute 17: “callous”]

• Item 16: Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

  • [attribute 15: “unwillingness to accept responsibility”]

This facet includes 3 of the 5 attributes (16-18) of group 4 (“they don’t experience feelings in the same way as others”), and one (15) from group 3. The PCL-R lacks two relevant PPP attributes: “self-interested” and “brazen.” While neither are explicitly included, however, the former may fold into item 2 (“grandiose sense of self-worth”) and the latter can be expressed as “glibness” (item 1).

Lifestyle

• Item 3: Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom

  • [not present in the PPP]

• Item 9: Parasitic lifestyle

  • [LF capability 5: “funding of lifestyle”]

• Item 13: Lack of realistic, long-term goals

  • [LF capability 4: “focus and purpose”]

• Item 14: Impulsivity

  • [LF capability 1: “planning and goal-setting”]

• Item 15: Irresponsibility

  • [negative value “viewed as reliable”]

This facet includes 3 low-functioning capabilities and 1 value from the PPP. (Though I wonder if “viewed as reliable” might be better categorized as a capability.) Item 3 also seems to me to be an LF PPP expression of lack of self-control.

Antisocial

• Item 10: Poor behavioral controls

  • [not present but seems like a general feature of LF PPPs]

• Item 12: Early behavior problems

  • [not present, but possibly related to LF “retention of freedom” expressed at a young age]

• Item 18: Juvenile delinquency

  • [not present, but possibly related to LF “retention of freedom” expressed at a young age]

• Item 19: Revocation of conditional release

  • [not present, but possibly related to LF “retention of freedom”]

• Item 20: Criminal versatility

  • [HF PPPs are probably versatile in the types of crimes they commit, or are capable of committing, but this will apply more to LF PPPs aren’t as skilled at “retention of freedom”]

These items all seem related to attribute 8 (“has a low regard for laws, regulations, and agreements, as well as social and moral codes”), as expressed by PPPs on the lower-functioning end of the “retention of freedom” capability.

The last two items of the PCL-R don’t correlate with the 4 facets above:

• Item 11: Promiscuous sexual behavior

  • [attribute 9: “sexual boundarylessness”]

• Item 17: Many short-term marital relationships

  • [an example of LF capability 4: “focus and purpose”]

Both items relate to sexual relationships. The first is an example of sexual boundarylessness, while the second relates to the “focus and purpose” capability.

Sexual boundarylessness is thus the only other attribute from group 2 (“they are motivated and operate differently and darkly”) that shows up in the PCL-R aside from “low regard for laws.” Missing are: “predatory/exploitative,” “sadistic and cruel,” and “unreasonable expectations of others.”

The least represented grouping is what Mitchell considers the most important: group 1 (“they drive the agenda”). Only attribute 2 shows up (“self-view of superiority”). Missing are “a drive for control, power, dominance,” “pathological, explosive inner response to being compromised or challenged,” “vengeful,” and “uncompromising.”

Most of the capabilities are represented, though all on the low-functioning end of the spectrum. Missing is “self-protection.” One value shows up in a negative form (“viewed as reliable”), but not the other four (wealth, attention, status, legacy).

By my count, the PCL-R includes 13 items (65%) biased towards low-functioning psychopaths. In other words, it’s pretty clear that it is simply a test for LF PPPs. Where Hare and his colleagues go wrong is labeling criminal psychopathy the “prototypic” psychopathic profile. It’s not. If anything, the “callous-conning” profile better fits the bill, with the “prototypic” being simply a low-functioning subtype.

I first wrote about these profiles when I started this Substack. Newer readers can check out those posts below:

The second post describes four distinct PCL-R profiles found in people given the test. These include “prototypic” (high on all four facets), “callous-conning” (high on the interpersonal-affective facets), “externalizing” (high on the lifestyle-antisocial facets), and “general” (low on all four facets). Prototypic is criminal psychopathy. Callous-conning is high-functioning psychopathy. Externalizing is sociopathy. And general is everyone else.

Here’s roughly how I visualize the distinctions in a couple nice Venn Diagrams:

We still have three chapters from Mitchell’s thesis to cover, so up next will be Chapter 5, “Findings: Shedding Light on Points of Contention and Other Issues.”