The dark side: Child abuse

Posted on Updated on


Small children scared to death of something they yet don`t understand. We shake our heads in disbelief. Parents, families and friends, who should love and protect them, harm them instead.
I know many are angry and saddened by the staggering numbers of abuse.  

It is not only war that haunts us, the evil acts of brothers, sisters and friends, haunts us 
I can`t stop being naive; Believing that things can get better, but I need to see actions by the governments and   powerful people that have our lives in their hands. Like Lilly Allen says: I love diamonds, I heard people die when their trying to find them. How many luxury goods do we need, while the world falls more and more apart? Is the empty life of so many the whole reason that positive change takes so much time?   

What if we all stretched out our hands. Not afraid of touching other human beings? But every person has their story, and some of the stories people carry with them, are dark enough to block out life even if it`s right in front of them. How long can they stay in the dark? How far can we cope with our own neglect of humanity? How long can we value ourselves, forgetting others in the process? Because there are thousand kinds of abuse, and us looking away, sure doesn`t make the world a better place. 

Child abuse should never happen. But it does, and we must face that. We can`t shake our heads in disbelief, at the same time as we do nothing. So, let`s shine some light, so that the darkness might lift a little.

Child abuse trauma: Theory and treatment of the …‎Briere – Sitert av 1176
Child sexual abuse‎Finkelhor – Sitert av 2951

The sound of phantoms

Posted on

I had been here before, a long time ago.

Some hide. Darkness their friends, light their enemies. Some of fright, some to win the war. We have all seen and known them, but like phantoms, they keep evading us. We see them, but only in the  When it`s too late, when they`ve crept out of their hiding places, they drag their victims with them. We find every type of them: Vampires, parasites and monsters. Some try to take you with them to their underworld, to their promise of bliss and peace. Some lure, some force, some decide for you. They try so hard to find company in their darkness. No matter who comes with them, or what the consequences will be. They like the phobic caves of fear, and have built many. They are architects of destructions, and prey on people already in debt.

I`ve always been a naïve skeptic, and given every type of architect a fair chance. They tried to drag me down to their underworld, too, but I liked it better in the light.

And now I`m coming back.


Warning: We hide in the global darkness
Warning: We hide in the global darkness

Darkness no more, let them come into the light so all their secrets can be revealed.

You held me down, but I got up

Already brushing off the dust
You hear my voice, your hear that sound
Like thunder, gonna shake your ground
You held me down, but I got up
Get ready ’cause I’ve had enough
I see it all, I see it now

No day but today

Thank you, Klavert. for trying so hard.

Sorry you failed


Phantom Of The Opera

Sunshine and Shadows: Life with DID


for password-protected posts, email me at



The sound of walking on eggshells

Posted on Updated on


Walking on eggshells


Aunty is chronically angry. From time to time, she is relaxed and jolly, but not often. Mostly, she is angry. In fact, she is angry so much of the time that anger seems to be her personality.

At the same time, she also had her 60th birthday this week, and I don’t think she likes getting old. Sixty is not old, but she lives in a country where the mean life expectancy is only a few years away from that. So for her, it is.

She has been a black cloud ever since.

I think I also drive her particularly crazy. Because I refuse to be drawn in. If she doesn’t feel like talking, I don’t talk to her. But otherwise I go about my daily tasks in the same calm and cheerful way. “Good morning, Aunty,” I say with a smile, when she comes into the bedroom where I’m writing in order to start on the laundry. She mumbles something unintelligible back or, if she’s really in a bad mood, scowls in a fixed kind of way–looking, but without making real eye contact. As if you aren’t a person and hadn’t spoken.

I am relentless, in fact, my tone never changing, the smile always there. If I were her, I’d be thinking of murdering me. What right do I have to be so happy? Especially when she is feeling so glum.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

Life, clearly, is just not fair. I say that with a degree of irony. She grew up pampered and spoiled–”kept in cotton wool” she says. And you know how I did. My happiness was not a gift, handed to me. I fought for it–tooth and nail. That’s one reason I won’t let go of it.

I’m also using the medium chill technique on her: polite, upbeat, steady, distant. And I’m not doing it specifically to yank her chain, but for the benefit of my own sanity.

However, I am also inclined to placate her, to be careful of her preferences, and to do exactly what she says even if I’d rather not or if it makes no logical sense. Now, this is not my house, and my own belief is that you should be able to have things done as you like in your own home. But in addition to that, I’m also aware of the pull to not make things worse, or to try not to make things worse if it’s possible.

The effect is something like walking on eggshells.

Nearly everyone walks on eggshells with her. And this makes me think.

People who are chronically angry tend to exploit others for the benefits they can provide rather than engage in caring, reciprocal relationships. They often see others as objects and use them accordingly, the way you would use a coffee maker or a car. Perhaps their anger makes any other kind of relationship impossible, or perhaps their view of others as objects is what is making them so  angry in the first place–after all, I’d get really frustrated if my coffee maker started making its own decisions about when and how it wanted to make coffee. So I can understand.

But when we tiptoe around difficult people, it make objects out of them a well. It is as if we are saying, “You are not a person, but something like a delicate machine or a rickety bridge–something to be careful of rather than engaged with.” And I wonder about that.

The sound of complicated women

Posted on Updated on

I met several new people through this blog. One of the wonderful people I`ve met, has already left us (the sound of crying across the universe). I`m saddened by this, but I still want to meet and keep contact with others I met through the blog (ElleAshana, rudy, Monty, Jede a«Awax», Jen, David, Judy, Robert, (give up never), Sally May, Rosie (annarosemeeds), «Suzie» and many others). One of the people I really like and appreciate is Monty. We have emailed for a time, and I do feel I found a real friend I`ll probably try to keep contact with for a long time.

My thanks to Monty

I have known Monty for some time now, and have had the pleasure of reading some of his post. I already know the author as an intelligent and creative man. He applies his own thoughts on his psychological knowledge, and the result is an exciting new view of things. He has said I have inspired him in this post, and I hope it`s not the worst of the archetypes presented (I hope I`m the person in Breaking Bad).

I hope you like it as much as me.


My previous article was about male archetypes, while the article was a little vague with only one real example, it was an important part of what I am currently working on. If you had read the previous article, you would see I am trying to create a new scale to define both male and female archetypes. It is a work in progress so this is where the lack of detail comes from.

The reason why I decided to do this was because I had noticed a big shift (by my standards any way, for most people the difference may not even be noticeable) in the roles played by both males and females over the last few years. This scale was an attempt at creating a system that was more accurate at measuring these differences than the previous well documented archetypes.

zebrIn the last few years, the old archetypes have become tired cliches, the anti-hero and the femme fatale are all overdone. In recent years, thanks to postmodernism, these character traits have become a sort of mix and match in an attempt to create something original.

While the original categories still serve a purpose, and it’s not my intention to challenge these roles. Instead I have tried to create a new system, which makes it easier to see which areas have been overdone, and where something could be different.

This article isn’t so much about explaining my scale, its more about why I found the need to create a different scale to begin with. After a few years of doing this I have found that the more the creator tests these established roles (in a calculated way) the more likely their work is to succeed.

The scale is by no means complete, I am yet to find some more appropriate names for each of these new definitions. In my previous article I describe the male scale, which is almost identical to the female scale

The only difference being that instead of the “father ” scale I would use the “mother” scale. These are more maternal traits or characteristics that are commonly seen in people that are parents, there is no need for the character to actually be a parent. The term fatherly/motherly figure would be the best way of explaining this.

One thing that I have found really interesting while doing this, is using another method which I will explain in detail in a future post, I have been measuring what could be considered female traits in male characters, and vice-versa.

The idea for doing this came about when I started to realize that most male writers struggled to create female roles that didn’t fit in to a set criteria. This isn’t something that I just came up with, there is a a lot of already created information that supports this belief and the reasons behind it.

It seems that there is a simple connection when people write, that certain characteristics can be attributed to males, and other attributes we consider them to be effeminate and therefore attribute them to women. This phenomena relates a lot to my overall research which is the relation of feeling and thoughts.

If I was to describe to you certain personality traits without telling you the gender of this person, you imagination would most likely (not always) either imagine a male or a female based on the traits that I describe.

It seems that we will automatically associate these traits to the different genders accordingly, but in recent years as I have been explaining above there is a need to challenge this perception.

This has actually become a sigh of relief for me, I was growing tired of the lack of female roles that challenged this perception. I believe this problem is not so much attributed to society as it can be attribute to how our mind process information and this infamous relation between thoughts and feelings that I keep on going on about.

This subject of female roles is becoming increasingly popular, as a whole the roles of women in society are being questioned and reconsidered. Every day I read articles about how companies and governments are changing the rules to allow women equal representation, so it stands to reason that this effect will also be noticeable in the media.

Now getting to the subject of my article I am going to draw some attention to some interesting examples of female roles I have seen recently.

Prisoners (2013)


This film was quite good, and it is reflected in the very high ratings this film is receiving across the board. It’s actually very uncommon for a film to receive a high rating on both Rotten tomatoes and IMDB but it seems that this film did accomplish that.

Generally speaking films that are popular on Rotten tomatoes are films that challenges our perception on just about anything, they may not be masterpieces in a traditional sense, but the defy current standards in some way.

This film seems to be able to accomplish this will being a film aimed at general audiences. In a way I would consider this film to be a great showcase for the scale I use, it’s quite accurate.

If you haven’t seen this film, its best that you don’t read any further as there is a few spoilers in here. If you have already seen it, that is great because you will know exactly what I am talking about.

The first thing I found really interesting was Jake Gylenhaal’s character, Detective Loki. If you did read my previous article about male archetypes you will see that I talked about the character trait that I had nick named “Lucifer” or “God disgruntled son” (again I am working on the names).

What I found interestingly is that in Norse mythology the god Loki which this character is named after would be the equivalent of Lucifer in the christian mythology. But given he isn’t all bad, he would also equally fit under the other end of the spectrum.

A sometimes faithful character to god, and sometimes an opposing force, a sort of love-hate relationship. This is why this character was so interesting to me because he really is a more accurate representation of what this side of the spectrum equates to.

The character is disgruntled in his own way, but faithful and does his job regardless. While I used the character Trevor from the video game series GTA V, this was only an example of the pure negative characteristics, while this character embodies film the positive attributes.

This continued throughout the film, especially with the male father roles, and also the son of Hugh Jackman’s character which was a great representation of the character traits of “God redeeming son” or the “Jesus” spectrum as I call it.

The characters where combinations of multiple traits that using a traditional scale would be quite hard to measure. But using my scale they become they are perfect examples of the emotional spectrums on the scale I developed.

I think for clarification that I should explain once again that the use of the term “God” is not a representation of a supernatural higher being, rather that “God” on my scale is the lead role, which can be either male or female. The characters around the lead role or “God”) then serve as a point of comparison.

Getting back to the film, what caught my attention the most, was the role of the aunt of the accused, Holly Jones played by Melissa Leo. She appears to be your average female supporting role; maternal, caring, and the kind of supporting female role you have come to see in countless films before.

What grab my attention as nothing could have been further from the truth, this role was anything but average. The person who was responsible for kidnapping and killing children was in fact this humble character. She was a true psychopath that even I didn’t see coming until the very end.

Her motives where simple yet equally chilling, she did it to challenge the faith of the parents of the children that she kidnapped. She enjoyed destroying the faith and their belief in God (this film had a lot of religious undertones) and that was her soul motive for doing this.

While this would be a negative representation of a female character, it shows that not only positive positive representations of females are needed. Showing women as evil, and allowing them to be bad role models (while also being able to be maternal) is just as important in destroying the already well established representations.

While it stands to reason that this character was a psychopath, and her motives where nothing more than despicable, the fact that it was so uncommon is what I believe makes this film so popular on original. It suggests that there is a lot of willingness from the viewer (or spectator) to see a change in the roles we have gotten used to seeing in your average Hollywood film.

As an interesting side note the director did part of his studies in a scientific field, I wonder if his experiences in scientific procedures are what gave him the perfect skill set to do this film. He challenged the existing perception in an incremental way.

Putting this aside, the acting in this film was great, the male roles were also exceptional and overall this was a really captivating film putting a lot of not so done ideas forward. This is the only problem with postmodernism, while we have probably seen this before, its about finding what hasn’t been done enough and what is most accurate of our current society.

Some other creations that have really stood out recently, are mostly in television, some of them I have covered already but I will revisit them here.

Skyler White from the show Breaking Bad.


This character had really caught my attention over the last few years. It seems to be a common thing with AMC shows that the leading females are never very liked (Lori from the walking dead and Mad Men in general). Some feminist even say that the hatred of Skyler white amounts to modern day misogyny.

This character is very interesting because it proves that there is actually a positive to the very entrenched roles that females usually server, even if most people don’t actively realize it.

While it is widely considered a very tired cliche that men protect the women they love, very little thought is given to the idea that women also protect the men they love. It is Skyler Whites questioning of Walts actions that makes her a very important female role.

Skyler does both, and well. On one hand at times she is seen validating Walts role as a male,  which is interesting that even the most sociopathic behavior by a male can be pardoned or justified provided it is validated by a female (especially if she loves him).

But at the same time she has her own perception on his actions, most of the time she doesn’t agree with them. This disagreement is important and a subject that deserves more attention than it receives, Because this is how women protect men. There is something special about the perceived “bitch”-like character traits as describe in male circles.

These characteristics need to be embraced a little more, while Skyler was allowed to be both supportive and opposing of her husbands behavior, which was positive in its own way. The times when she was in opposition, if Walt had of listened, he probably would have survived the show (regardless of the fact he probably would have died from cancer).

I felt that Skyler White was such a  good character because in a lot of ways she was independent, and not subject to the kind of thinking that states men can do anything while women have to be the reserved ones. With that said she still fulfilled her role as the reserved one, and demonstrated the positive characteristics of her very female characteristic, her intuition.

Tara Knowles from Sons of Anarchy.

Sons of Anarchy 1x05 Giving Back

I am probably going to get a lot of mixed opinions about relating anything to do with the show Sons of Anarchy and female archetypes. The truth is that the show is a very male orientated production that is incredibly sexist, there is no point trying to hide that fact.

But in this extreme form of sexism, it actually creates a rare opportunity for a female role to challenge the boundaries. In the show Tara is an educed Doctor, who is able to commit crimes and use violence to her favor, she both validates and opposes her husband delinquent behavior.

She is at times a strong mother, and at other times she boarders on the insane and insecure. Her role isn’t anything to revolutionary, but at the same time there are aspects that really challenge existing perceptions of female roles. Her moral conflicts have become increasingly interesting in the last two seasons.

As a side comment, it interesting that Charlie Hannam who plays Tara Knowles husband in the show was cast to play Christian Gray in the 50 shades of gray film adaption. He eventually pulled out as he became increasingly worried by the attention he was getting from female fans of the book.

It’s just ironic, he acts like such a tough guy that is scared of nothing in the show, but it turns out he is scared of one thing, the female fans of 50 shades of gray.

American Horror Story: Coven.

The american Horror story series are rapidly becoming one of my favorite shows to watch. Especially the most recent female centered series. It has created an opportunity to challenge a lot of perceptions, while proving that challenging these perceptions creates very intriguing and interesting story line.

Their is no male lead in this series, and the cast is predominantly women, who are essentially witches and the out casts of society. I could probably write an entire article about this series alone and what makes it so important. It’s probably best that you just watch it, and enjoy the horror format translated in to a television series.

Under the Dome.

The plot line of this show is best described as Steven King. It follows a familiar format that you see in a lot of his productions, however the TV production is really well made. The reason why I am drawing attention to this is the female roles, they are actually a little more realistic and fresh when compared to other TV shows.

The lesbian couple who are parents of one of the other female characters was realistic for a change, and not serialized, its something that you don’t see often. A lot of the major roles are played by other women, and the show in a way focuses on the relationships between men and women.

Again this show isn’t to revolutionary, however its a step in a right direction. I am enjoying seeing more and more shows that put female acting talent over looks and go in the opposite direction of objectification, something that is becoming more and more common.

To finish this off, I wanted to talk about a new rating system that has been launched in Sweden recently. This rating system is called the Bechdel rating system, and it rates a film according to 3 guidelines which attempt to distinguish a more feminist films from other not-so feminist films.

The 3 guidelines are:

  • There must be at least two women with names in the film.
  • At least two women must talk to each other at some point.
  • The women must talk to each other about something other than a man.

The problem with this system, the guidelines really don’t add anything to the idea of furthering women roles in films, they cover concepts that could easily be manipulated, and while I feel the idea is a step forward, the implementation of the system is a bit of a fail from the get go.

Using a great example is a film that apparently fails by the this standard, this is the Harry Potter series. The author, who is known for being a feminist, wanted to create a female role (Hermione)  that really challenged these previous standards that had been set by male writers over the last few centuries.

She did this quite well in my opinion, Hermonie didn’t end up with the “Hero” of the story, she was intelligent and often as heroic as her male counterpart. She wasn’t there to validate the male lead, rather she was her own person and respected for her own accomplishments.

However on the scale put forward by the Swedes this series fails and gets a really low rating. Which is why I feel the scale has little perspective on the problem as a whole. These challenges to the perceived norm happen in small increments.

Each one of these films needs to be assessed individually, and compared to other films to see if it is legitimately is a step forward. I believe that it becomes hard for male writers who want to challenge these perceptions, as the truth is only women can put forward the idea of how they wish to be defined.

In order for this to happen we need more and more women creators which is slowly happening.

But I would like to see more work put in to this rating system, the idea of my scale is to help create a more logical and systematic approach to doing this, a more scientific method of measuring these differences and assessing what needs the most work.

I will be writing more on this subject when ever I see any stops forward, and highlighting them on this blog.

I would really appreciate comments from my readers (especially the female readers) of roles that you have seen in the past few years that challenge the norm, and represent women in the way you wish to be represented. This would be a great help in making this scale more accurate

In “TV shows”

The origin of names.
In “Research”

Sociopath and the confusion of kindness

Posted on Updated on

Sociopath and the confusion of kindness

One thing that can confuse victims of sociopaths is their ability to ‘be kind’. Just as you have decided that you have had enough, that you want to leave, and to get out of this abusive, controlling relationship, the sociopath switches, and becomes ‘Mr kind’ ‘Mr caring’ and ‘Mr compassionate’ . This is often much to the annoyance of those who have been supporting you to leave. As now, you are at risk of being lured back in by the sociopath.


Any ordinary person, even an abused one, will get to the point where they have to leave for the sake of their own sanity. Nobody can endure being hurt over and over.

A sociopath will sense when he is losing control. He will sense when he is about to lose you, and therefore lose his source of supply. You are hurt, damaged, and you desperately want your inner hurt and pain to go away. But you stand firm, you try to retain No Contact, you try to be kind to yourself.

The sociopath will realise that berating you, is getting nowhere and that he is losing his grip of control over you. Perhaps you have decided to have nothing to do with him, that you are establishing no contact and bringing others into your life for support.

A sociopath is always able to read you, to assess you, to analyse you. And when he feels that he is losing grip of his latest victim, he can then be unbelievably kind. You will start to question your own judgement. You read the DSM list of criteria for sociopaths. Kindness is not listed, so you reason, perhaps you are wrong? Maybe he isn’t a sociopath after all?

What the sociopath is doing is returning back to stage two – Seducing/Gaming. If you recall I wrote earlier how there are three stages with a sociopath. And he can revert back to earlier stages, if he hasn’t yet finished with you, and you still have further use to him. The three stages are:

  • Assessment
  • Gaming/seducing
  • Ruining

It is important to stick with what you feel. To write down what is happening to you. Listen to your inner self, and your gut feeling. You might feel that because the sociopath is being kind and that perhaps you have it wrong? That he isn’t a sociopath after all?

You are being lured back into the fairy tale of who you want him to be, that person who in your mind, you fell in love with, but who didn’t exist. He is now about to sell you the fairy tale for the second time.

So far, I have discussed how you are feeling, and how this makes you feel, and how this confuses you.

What you feel, is maybe he does love me? He seems to care about my welfare, and how I am feeling? Maybe your assessment of him is wrong, and he isn’t actually a sociopath? You start to breathe a sigh of relief. Now you can return to the illusion you had before. He is actually a normal person, not a sociopath.

For the sociopath, it is not about how you are feeling. He is not thinking about your needs, or your welfare, neither does he care how much you are hurting (although it might seem that way).  To return to the motive for the sociopath (remember that the sociopath ALWAYS has a motive), what he is thinking is either:

  • He is losing a source of supply he does not want to lose
  • Or you have ended things on your terms, he does not like this loss of control, and wants to end things on his terms

If you were to return to the sociopath when he is being kind, if you were to listen to the sociopath and his glib, false empty promises, things will shortly return to the way that they were before.

Whilst his kindness might give you a temporary relief of pain and hurt that you are feeling. It will, once you are trusting him again, and allowing him control over you and your life, return to the abusive relationship that you were in before.

Nothing will ever change. The sociopath cannot change. His brain is wired differently. He cannot help but manipulate and deceive. Trust your judgement, and do not be temporarily blinded to acts of kindness, it is tempting to do so, as we do not want  to realise that the person we were involved with was a different person to who we thought. We want our judgment about him to be wrong. We want it not to be true, but it is true. The sooner that you come to terms with this, the quicker you can heal.

Unfortunately, with a sociopath, it is the way that he is. Whilst things might be ok for a while, service would soon resume as normal. His need for control is overwhelming, acting kind, is manipulating you, and just another way for you to be controlled.

Remember that the sociopath is master of disguise, and will do and say anything to get what he wants. Being kind is another manipulation tool that is used when he either wishes to lure you in, in the beginning, or to lure you back when he feels that he is losing you.

Words ©


Protected: The sound of breaking mirrors

Posted on Updated on

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The sound of us opening our eyes

Posted on

English: A sleeping male baby with his arm ext...
English: A sleeping male baby with his arm extended (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We all know the importance of balance, but we struggle to achieving it. One of the most important issues related to harmony and balance, is parenting. The same rule applies to parenting as many things in life: Neither too much or too little.

I found a really interesting article on the subject, that I had to share since we have to open our eyes to the peril of “curling-parenting”; Where you remove every obstacle so that children don`t learn and become competent and empathic. In other words: Children who never met resistance, don`t develop emotion regulation skills necessary for surviving today.

Some have said we are creating a society of narcissist, which reminds me of a quote from a Norwegian therapist:

“We`re a society of people who want to be seen, and none left to see.”


As a new mom and a recent MSW graduate, I can’t help but analyze, question, and sometimes fear the ways in which my parenting choices will affect my son.

During the few months I was home with my baby, I joined a moms group. Now that the babies are three or four months old, the conversations sound like “my baby will not sleep in the crib,” “my baby wakes up every three hours,” “my baby needs to be held all day.”

From a recommendation, I readBringing Up Bébé: One American Mother Discovers the Wisdom of French Parenting when I was pregnant. The 2012 book is written by Pamela Druckerman, an American mom raising her baby in Paris.

At first glance, I thought the book was a witty tongue-in-cheek story about neurotic Americans and cool Parisians. On second glance (and a second reading after I birthed the child), I realized this book unlocked the secrets of raising a happy, resilient adult.

Ms. Druckerman charmingly explains the many ways in which French children differ from American children. On the surface, it appears that American children are less patient, less polite and throw more tantrums. American parents may think it’s cute and innocent; their kids will grow out of it. And it is true, the child may eventually stop the behavior, but the coping skills (or lack of) have been firmly set in stone.

Why You Should Let Your Baby Be FrustratedI do not believe Druckerman was writing a book on human development, but to a social worker, it seems her observations directly relate to why so many American adults seek therapy. Therapists’ offices are filled with adults who suffer from anxiety,depression, anger management issues, eating disorders or marital problems. Any psychoanalyst would tell you that many of these issues are deeply rooted in childhood.

American parents seem overly worried that if their child hears “no” they will become angry and experience frustration and disappointment. On the contrary, the French believe that “no” saves children from the tyranny of their own desires. Caroline

Thompson, a family psychologist in Paris whom Druckerman interviewed, stated what seems to be the overall view in France: “making kids face up to limitations and deal with frustration turns them into happier, more resilient people.” Isn’t that what every parent wants for their child?

“French parents don’t worry that they’re going to damage their kids by frustrating them. To the contrary, they think their kids will be damaged if they can’t cope with frustration. They also treat coping with frustration as a core life skill. Their kids simply have to learn it. The parents would be remiss if they didn’t teach it.”

Druckerman interviewed pediatrician and founder of Tribeca Pediatrics, Michel Cohen, a French doctor practicing in New York City. “My first intervention is to say, when your baby is born, just don’t jump on your kid at night,” Cohen says.

“Give your baby a chance to self-soothe, don’t automatically respond, even from birth.” “Le pause,” as Druckerman coins it, is one of the main ways to gently induce frustration. The French believe “le pause” can start as early as two to three weeks old.

Although “le pause” may sound like tough love for a infant, most American parents end up surrendering to the “cry it out” method at three to four months because their baby never learned to self-soothe. “Le pause” worked for me, although I did not consciously subscribe to this method. I think it was a combination of sleep deprivation and C-section recovery that created “le pause,” but it worked! “Le pause” creates babies who are content to snuggle alone in their cribs, babies who at a very young age learn to soothe themselves.

And hopefully “le pause” creates adults who can cope with frustration, a skill that is extremely useful and necessary for success in work and relationships and dealing with the overall stressors of everyday life.

Norwegian links:

Psykopatiserie del 8 – Samfunnsmagasinet

SUPERMARIE – – Vi ser ikke ut lenger, vi ser kun oss selv – Side2

Livsstrategi: Se og bli sett

English links:

The sound of shocking news

Posted on Updated on


You can cut all the flowers 
but you cannot keep 
spring from coming


Yesterday I showed a video-interview that I found on an excellent blog I really like to visit when I need information about personality disorders  (“Dating a psychopath“) . It was about a famous man in UK (Jimmy Savile), who had many of the traits of a charismatic psychopath.

The following video is footage collected after his death, when the truth came out about him. He had fooled the public for decades. Masked with charisma. Which was, only a mask. He was not only a charismatic sociopath. He was also a paedophile.

Exposure – The Other Side of Jimmy Saville… by couchtripper

Exposure – The Other Side of Jimmy Saville… by couchtripper

Protected: The sound of fireworks/his real face

Posted on

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Can psychopaths switch their empathy on?

Posted on

Psychopathic criminals have empathy switch

By Melissa Hogenboom

Science reporter, BBC News
NeuronsMirror neurons in the brain fire both when you watch someone in pain and when you experience it yourself

Psychopaths do not lack empathy, rather they can switch it on at will, according to new research.

Placed in a brain scanner, psychopathic criminals watched videos of one person hurting another and were asked to empathise with the individual in pain.

Only when asked to imagine how the pain receiver felt did the area of the brain related to pain light up.

Scientists, reporting in Brain, say their research explains how psychopaths can be both callous and charming.

The team proposes that with the right training, it could be possible to help psychopaths activate their “empathy switch”, which could bring them a step closer to rehabilitation.

Continue reading the main story

The study

a participant being slapped on the hand to localize brain regions sensitive to pain
  • Placed in an fMRI scanner, 18 criminals with psychopathy and 26 control subjects were asked to watch a series of clips without a particular instruction
  • The clips showed one hand touching the other in a loving, a painful, a socially rejecting or a neutral way
  • They were then asked to watch the same clips again but this time try and feel what the subjects in the clips felt
  • In the third part of the study they were slapped with a ruler to localise the pain region of the brain

Mirror neurons

The ability to empathise with others – to put yourself in someone else’s shoes – is crucial to social development in order to respond appropriately in everyday situations.

Criminals with psychopathy characteristically show a reduced ability to empathise with others, including their victims. Evidence suggests they are also more likely to reoffend upon release than criminals without the psychiatric condition.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by superficial charm, pathological lying and a diminished capacity for remorse.

Now scientists have found that only when asked to empathise did the criminals’ empathy reaction, also known as the mirror system, fire up the same way as it did for the controls. Without instruction, they show reduced activity in the regions of the brain associated with pain.

This mirror system refers to the mirror neurons in our brain which are known to activate when we watch someone do a task and when we do it ourselves. They are thought to play a vital role in the ability to empathise with others.

‘Bleak prospect’Christian Keysers from the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, and senior author of the study, said it could change the way psychopathic criminals were viewed.

“The predominant notion had been that they are callous individuals, unable to feel emotions themselves and therefore unable to feel emotions in others.

“Our work shows it’s not that simple. They don’t lack empathy but they have a switch to turn it on and off. By default, it seems to be off.”

The fact that they have the capacity to switch empathy on, at least under certain conditions, could have a positive side to it, Prof Keysers said.

“The notion psychopaths have no empathy at all was a bleak prospect. It would make it very hard for them to have normal moral development.

“Now that we’ve shown they have empathy – even if only in certain conditions – we can give therapists something to work with,” Prof Keysers told BBC News.

Brain activation in individuals with psychopathy was greater when asked to imagine pain (foreground) Brain activation in criminals with psychopathy was greater when asked to empathise (foreground)

But he explained that it was not yet known how this wilful capacity for empathy could be transformed into the spontaneous empathy most of us have.

Million-dollar questionEssi Viding from University College London, who was not involved with the study, said it was an extremely interesting finding, but that it remained unclear whether the psychopathic criminals’ experience of empathy felt the same as that of the controls.

“It’s dangerous to look at brain activation and say that it means they’re empathising. They are able to generate a typical neural response, but that doesn’t mean they have the same empathetic experience,” Prof Viding told BBC News.

“We know they can generate the same response but they do that in an active and effortful way. Under free-viewing conditions they don’t seem to. Just because they can emphasise, doesn’t mean they will.

“Psychopathic criminals are clearly different. The million-dollar question is whether we can devise therapeutic interventions that would shift them do this more automatically.”

Randall Salekin, from the University of Alabama, US, who works with youth offenders said: “These findings fit with much of the treatment I am doing using a mental model program, whereby youth are informed about how the brain works and then asked to make specific plans for improving their lives.

“This study is impressive because it actually shows the brain mechanisms or neural networks involved in activating the inmates’ empathy.”

More on This Story

Related Stories