Evil Genes

by Barbara Oakley

  TOOL 3: COMMUNICATE TO BE HEARD

  The first rule of communication is knowing when not to attempt it. When someone with symptoms of borderline personality disorder has intense feelings, the emotional centers of his brain “hijack” the logical centers. Asking your family member to process factual information is like asking a baby to drive a car. It's not that he doesn't want to, it's that he can't.

  If you're feeling criticized or blamed—especially when it's quite undeserved—the natural response is to defend yourself. But this only makes things worse because the message the borderline receives is, “Your feelings are wrong.” While no one wants to be told their emotions are baseless, borderline individuals have an especially intense, negative reaction to having their feelings “invalidated” (meaning rejected, denied, ignored, mocked, judged, or diminished).

  To avoid doubling his anger at and pain of being told he's incorrect about his own feelings, you need to separate your BP's distorted thinking from the intense, overwhelming feelings, and then empathically acknowledge those emotions to your family member without necessarily agreeing with the thoughts that link the two.

  So how do you do that? Through a technique called “empathic acknowledging”—a blend of empathy, active listening skills, and acknowledging.

  EMPATHY

  Empathy is emotionally putting yourself in someone else's place to the point when you can vicariously experience her thoughts and feelings.

  Metaphorically, people who express sympathy are like people who drive by the scene of an accident, slow down, give an encouraging expression to the driver of the banged-up car, then speed up and go along their merry way. On the other hand, people who express empathy pull over, get out of their car, clasp the shoulder of the driver, and say, “Oh wow, I bet this is the last thing you needed to happen right now.”

  ACTIVE LISTENING

  Active listening means suspending your judgments and opinions, and pushing everything out of your mind except your family member—you're about to enter her world. Focus on what she's feeling as well as saying, with her words, tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language.

  Listen with 100 percent of your attention without interrupting, asking questions, offering solutions, or thinking about what you're going to say next. This says, “You and what you say are so important that I'm giving you my undivided time and attention. I am willing to listen to you with an open mind.”

  ACKNOWLEDGING (VERBAL AND NONVERBAL)

  Verbally, use encouragers such as “oh,” “hmm,” and “really?” Reflect their feelings (“That sounds frustrating”). Show involvement (“I'm happy for you”). Punctuate intense emotions (“Oh no!”).

  Your most powerful communication tool is your face and body, not your mouth. Research shows that people convey just 7 percent of their attitudes and beliefs through their actual words. The other 93 percent comes from our tone of voice (38 percent) and our facial expressions (55 percent).

  Make your eyes soft and steady, showing interest. Have a relaxed facial expression (no tightening or scrunching up) with a neutral expression or genuine half-smile. Relax your body (whether seated or standing) and have your arms loose by your sides. Don't stare, glare, look away, grimace, frown, or scowl.

  Asking validating questions is another form of acknowledgment. Ask specific, clarifying questions in a way that shows genuine interest and is not provoking. BPs frequently make general, black-and-white comments like “You're selfish.” Ask your BP just what she means by these vague words. What exactly did you do that showed selfishness? How often did you do it? What makes your family member think you don't care about her?

  You might say, “I really want to understand you, but I'm having trouble appreciating the depth of your feelings about this. Can you try explaining this in another way? I care, I just need to understand better.”

  DEFUSE AGGRESSION

  Use noncombative statements that help you to reach your goal and inject some reality into the situation. Examples include:

  “You are the expert on yourself.”

  “I appreciate what you said, but what I mean is…”

  “At the time my motivation was…”

  Manage the conversation:

  “Could we get back on the subject?”

  “Let's discuss that at a later time. I'd like to keep the focus on…”

  “I was hoping we could talk about this. I don't see how we can resolve the situation if you won't talk with me.”

  Create a climate of cooperation:

  “Maybe we can find a way to…”

  What we do agree on is that…”

  Respond to unwarranted criticism or abusive statements:

  “I won't stand here and listen to you abuse/yell/attack me, so I'm going to leave if this continues.”

  “No, I won't tolerate that kind of language, so I'm going to leave if it continues.”

  DON'T MAKE YOUR HAPPINESS CONTINGENT ON YOUR FAMILY MEMBER'S DEGREE OF RECOVERY.

  Recovered BP A. J. Mahari advises family members to let go of their desire to control their borderline family member's recovery. “This is their journey, not yours,” she says. “You can support them, but it can't be your life plan.”

  Some non-BPs have embraced detaching with love, a concept promoted by Al-Anon, an organization for people whose lives are affected by someone who abuses alcohol. “Detachment” is neither kind nor unkind. It doesn't imply judgment or condemnation. It is simply a way that encourages each person in a relationship to make his or her own decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions.

  Strive to make sure you're neither used nor abused. Avoid manipulating situations to help the BP avoid looking at his own behavior. Neither create a crisis nor prevent one if it is in the natural course of events.

  Evil Genes may have opened your eyes to a whole ’nother side of human behavior. Although it may seem that a BP you know is consciously choosing his or her troubling behavior, try to remember that if your brain were similarly wired, you would in all probability be acting the same way. Join us at www.BPDCentral.com if you need friends and support as you retool your life in light of your new knowledge.

  Randi Kreger

  www.BPDCentral.com

  Coauthor of Stop Walking on Eggshells and

  author of Stop Walking on Eggshells Workbook and

  The Essential Family Guide to BPD

  * * *

  Portions of this afterword are from The Essential Family Guide to BPD: New Tools and Techniques to Stop Walking on Eggshells, by Randi Kreger (Hazelden Publishing, 2008).

  Have you ever known a successfully sinister person such as those described in Evil Genes? How did his or her actions duplicate or differ from those of the typical Machiavellian described in this book? Did “your” Machiavellian have any redeeming traits?

  Are you dealing with a successfully sinister person now in your life? How will you deal differently with him or her based on the information you've gleaned from Evil Genes?

  Do you think that you interact with people differently because of your own past experiences with the successfully sinister?

  Do you see Machiavellian traits in yourself? Are they healthy? How would you know?

  Have you ever found that one of your kindest traits was used to manipulate you into doing something wrong or hurtful to others or yourself? If so, did this cause changes in your subsequent behavior?

  Oakley struggled initially to write Evil Genes as a conventional—and impersonal—nonfiction book. Do you think that her ultimate decision to include memories of her sister made the book more powerful? Do you think it was difficult for her to share intimate information about her family? Would you have been willing to do the same?

  Is there a danger that ascribing Machiavellian traits to gene and brain dysfunction might result in persecution or discrimination (“bad seed,” “born bad,” “no hope”)? Or might it simply make treatment more probable?

  Oakley pointed out how oblivious people can be to
the influence of their emotions, which forms a cognitive blind spot they are certain they don't have. What do you think is one of your worst cognitive blind spots? Can you gain some inkling of why a well-meaning, intelligent person might disagree with you on this matter? (Watch for the little emotional uplift you get when you struggle and then conclude how fundamentally wrong the other opinion is.) Do you think that examining your most profound cognitive blind spots gives you insight into the cognitive disturbances of borderline-like thinking?

  Some dictators, like Hitler, Milosevic, or Saddam Hussein, were killed or ousted while still in relative middle age. Others, like Stalin and Mao, lived until their midseventies, exerting virtually complete control over their countries until their deaths. What is the difference between the long- and the relatively short-lived dictators?

  Someday dictators will have access to technology to have themselves cloned, allowing for an endless procession of “mini-me's.” What effect might this have on evil dictatorships of the future?

  Over time, whatever political party is in power nationwide often appears to lose focus and become mired in corruption and schemes that enrich their supporters but do not benefit the nation or their constituents. Oakley suggests that this is because over time more and more Machiavellians work their way into positions of leadership in the winning party. Do you agree? Or is there some other set of social mechanisms at work? Do you see similar corrupt processes occurring at a local political level, in your religious group, or at your place of work?

  Would it be effective to teach high school and college students about manipulative strategies such as gaslighting and projection and how to best react to such manipulation? Might this type of training have long-term benefits for society, such as reducing the percentage of marriages that end in divorce and shortening the period of time where a person fruitlessly tries to “fix” an “unfixable” Machiavellian? Or would it have the contrary effect of teaching Machiavellians to improve their strategy?

  Should high schools ever implement programs that teach students to be wary of possible Machiavellian motives behind emotional appeals for “fairness” or “justice”? Why might high school teachers oppose teaching about Machiavellian motives? Would opposition to such teaching be a form of censorship or manipulation?

  Did Carolyn and Jack love each other?

  Did Carolyn love her father?

  A number of important people have been responsible for getting this literary car on the road and keeping it on track. The first is my agent, Ben Salmon of Rights Unlimited, who plucked the early, rough manuscript from obscurity and took it to the top. The second is my Prometheus editor, Linda Greenspan Regan, who is the top—her support, guidance, and superb pointed criticisms have been of enormous benefit to this work. I am also deeply indebted to my editor, Audrey Perkins, faculty at Linn-Benton Community College in Albany, Oregon. Audrey has waded through every word of the developing manuscript numerous times (and since the manuscript was originally half again as long, that's saying a lot). Her careful and incisive editorial suggestions have been invaluable in improving the manuscript's quality and lifting it to a higher level. Audrey's colleague, Richard Liebaert, formerly of the Linn-Benton Biology Department, has also waded twice through the manuscript and made terrific contributions with his constructive criticism, which extended from a wide range of scientific insights to “stuff” in general. Professor Robin Hemley, director of the Nonfiction Writing Program at the University of Iowa, helped provide guidance during a crucial period in the book's formation, as did Dr. Richard Bruno, a leading authority on post-polio syndrome. My dear friend Dr. Gabrielle Stryker has given profoundly appreciated guidance and assistance related to both immunology and the book's illustrations.

  A number of experts have reviewed various portions of the manuscript as well as the manuscript as a whole. However, any book that covers so many different disciplines is bound to be deemed problematic at times. No one can possibly have read all the relevant literature—virtually every book I cite, for example, has tantalized me with ten or more alluring references. The more discerning specialists will undoubtedly be able to think of exceptions, objections, counterexamples, and contradictions to the possibilities, generalizations, and conclusions that have been presented here. I apologize in advance to those who might take offense in this regard and note that any errors that might be found are mine and mine alone. Additionally, I would like to point out that those who have helped me on certain aspects of this work should not be taken to share all of my views. My intention with this book was to provoke thought, since we have just reached the edge of knowledge where science has become extraordinarily thought provoking.

  I could not have written this book without the “wisdom of crowds.” I am deeply indebted to the following individuals for their many contributions: Elizabeth Abbott, Craig Becker, Mary Tracy Bee (thanks for making cutting up corpses fun!), Giuseppe Biamonti, Warren Buffett, Rand Careaga, Rita Carter, Cindy Collins, Richard Felder, Paul Frick, Marc Haeringer, Jon Halliday, Sabine Herpertz, Linda Jack, Quinn Tyler Jackson, Kent Kiehl, Grace Kwok, Shailesh Lal, Eric LaRock, Doreen Lawrence, Cameron Leith, Guruprasad Madhavan, Peter McConville, Sam McFarland, Ken McLeod, Mark Milstein, Stephen J. Morse, Dmitri Nabokov, Andrew Nathan, Randolph Nesse, Joseph Newman, Nete Munk Nielsen, Jerry Oppenheimer, Jim Phelps, Cliff Pickover, Robert Plomin, Lucian Pye, Xianggui (Harvey) Qu, Adrian Raine, James M. Royer, Pat Santy, Kwai Sim Shek, Ken Silk, Daniel J. Simons, Helen Smith, Margaret Soltan, Richard Stamps, Bella Stander, David and Laura Stiles, Glenn Storey, Eugene Subbotsky, Ron Summers, Essi Viding, Daniel Weinberger, Margaret Willard-Traub, David Sloan Wilson, Matthew A. Wilson, and Ke Xu.

  Judith Rich Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption, gave me gentle impetus at the beginning of this project—for her graciousness I am utterly grateful. I could not have written this book if she had not “broken trail.”

  At Prometheus Books, Julia DeGraf's copy-editing skills are remarkable, and deeply appreciated. Grace Zilsberger's cover design is inspired (those who look closely might spot the DNA double-helix on the snake's back). Chris Kramer, Jill Maxick, Rich Snyder, Gretchen Kurtz, Mark Hall, Marcia Rogers, Bruce Carle, and Lynn Pasquale round out the crew of consummate Prometheus professionals who I've been fortunate indeed to work with. No question—Prometheus president Jonathan Kurtz runs a taut ship.

  At Oakland University, my dean, Pieter Frick, and department chair, Chris Wagner, have provided congenial support and encouragement, as have my “part-time” department chairs, Manohar Das and Gary Barber. I am very grateful. I also take this opportunity to thank the indefatigable staff at the Oakland University Interlibrary Loan Department, especially Patricia Clark, Diane Boving, and Dante Manes Rance, who I'm sure have long since concluded that I have unhealthy interests for an engineering professor.

  Some of my friends at Oakland University have contributed in ways too numerous to count to this project: Kris Allen, Farid Badar, Gary Barber, Len Brown, Dan Chang, Todd Estes, Christine Hansen, Richard Haskell, Peggy Lin, Kathy Pfeiffer, Pat Piskulich, Andrew Rusek, Brian Sangeorzan, Donna, John and Carina Searight, Meir “Fiki” Shillor, Anna Spagnuolo, and most especially, Cathy Starnes. Thank you all for making every day a fun day to come to work.

  Our younger daughter's line drawings are deeply appreciated. (Artistic talent not only skipped my generation—it left a vacuum.) Our older daughter's eagle eyes and insightful comments were invaluable. Our adopted sons Bafti and Irfan have each contributed in many ways and made my life and this book richer and more complete. I also thank my in-laws, Jane Raley and Daniel Oakley, whose patient encouragement and interest over the many years of this project has been greatly appreciated. My brother, as always, has provided faith in the fundamental decency of this branch of the family.

  My husband, Philip, swept me off my feet with a three-week engagement at the South Pole in Antarctica nearly twenty-five years ago. I knew it was a risk, but I thought—this man is worth the risk. How right I was! Surprisingly
for me, a writer, I can't find the words to describe my luck. But I can tell you this: I could have done none of this without Philip.

  1. Excerpt from Regina Pally, “The Neurobiology of Borderline Personality Disorder: The Synergy of ‘Nature and Nurture,’” Journal of Psychiatric Practice 8, no. 3 (2002): 133–42. With kind permission of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

  2. Excerpt from Adrian Raine, “Psychopathy, Violence, and Brain Imaging,” in Violence and Psychopathy, ed. Adrian Raine and José Sanmartín (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001), pp. 50–51. With kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media and Adrian Raine.

  3. Excerpt from Vladimir Nabokov's “An Evening of Russian Poetry” by arrangement with the Estate of Vladimir Nabokov. All rights reserved.

  Fig. Intro.1 Permission by author.

  Fig. 1.1 Reproduced with the permission of Punch, Ltd., http://www.punch.co.uk/.

  Fig. 1.2 Image courtesy Matthew Henry Hall, http://www.matthewhenryhall.com.

  Fig. 2.1 Two pie charts created by author from data available in Essi Viding, R. James, R. Blair, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Robert Plomin, “Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46, no. 6 (2005): 592–97.

  Fig. 3.1 Genetics Home Reference (Internet), Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US); 2003 (updated December 15, 2006; accessed December 22, 2006), “How Many Chromosomes Do People Have?” Adapted from http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/howmanychromosomes.

  Fig. 3.2 Image courtesy Darryl Leja, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health.

  Fig. 3.3 Adapted from National Center for Biotechnology Information (Internet), Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine (US), 2003 (accessed December 22, 2006), Homo sapiens build 36.2.