Jack the Somatic Narcissist

[mklhawley]

Greetings all,

I originally read this while investigating what motivates a character like Francis Tumblety, but I believe it should expand to an overall question of ‘Was the Ripper a narcissist?’ Below are some excerpts from chapter five of Dr. Sam Vaknyn’s book, MALIGNANT SELF LOVE NARCISSISM REVISITED, The World of the Narcissist, (2003). Chapter five is titled, The Narcissist and the Opposite Sex. I certainly cherry picked traits, so below this is the website with all of Dr. Vaknyn’s comments and his credentials. I encourage you to read it all, since there is so much more I could have added.



Most male narcissists are misogynists. After all, they are the warped creations of women. Women gave birth to them and moulded them into what they are: dysfunctional, maladaptive, and emotionally dead. They are angry at their mothers and, by extension at all women.
The narcissist's attitude to women is, naturally, complex and multi-layered but it can be described using four axes:
1. The Holy Whore
2. The Hunter Parasite
3. The Frustrating Object of Desire
4. Uniqueness Roles
The narcissist divides all women to saints and whores. He finds it difficult to have sex ("dirty", "forbidden", "punishable", "degrading") with feminine significant others (spouse, intimate girlfriend). To him, sex and intimacy are mutually exclusive rather than mutually expressive propositions.


http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissistoppositesex.html

Sincerely,
Mike

[Bridewell]

Hi Mike,

These characteristics fit my mental image of the sort of man the Whitechapel Murderer was: angry - certainly; self-loathing - probably. Narcissistic? Could be.

Regards, Bridewell.

[mklhawley]

Hi Bridewell,

That anger in the mutilation; for sure.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Fascinating !

It certainly does fit with my idea of Jack.

[lynn cates]

general observation

Hello Mike, Ruby. Fits in with my idea of Jack T. Ripper as well.

"They abscond with the male's sperm . . . "

Put another way:

"Women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence."

And whom but General Jack T. Ripper?!

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

Hi all,

It seems to fit the 1887 Paris murderer, Henri Pranzini, as well. While cutting the throats of all three of his victims (nearly severing the head of the last), he also mutilated the first; ripper-style.

Sincerely,

Mike

[towboydds]

Mike,

What the dear old Doctor failed to let you in on is the fact that many of the characteristics of a Narcissist, also cross over to that of the Anti-Social Personality Disorder,Psychopath,Sociopath,Paranoid Disorders. Thus leaving a huge gap into which one it could actually be. As the medical examiners inquest reports do not reflect that there was a sexual component to the murders, does not give rise to the fact there was a displeasement of sorts with the women or the ability to have sexual relations.

For a better understanding of the disorders that have been discussed as possible Jack T. Ripper models refer to the DSM IV-TR for a full list of disorders and the characteristics that follow with each one. You will find many that have the same listed qualities, and give no discernible differences between one to another.

[Archaic]

I, Psychopath

Hi Mike, how are you?

I've read Sam Vaknin's stuff for the past five or so years. He's quite an interesting person, though apparently not a genuine PhD.

But he is a genuine Narcissistic Psychopath, and he offers some amazing insights into the mind of other Narcissists.

But please bear in mind that when you are dealing with a Narcissistic Psychopath you must take everything they say with a very large grain of salt... consider the source,
and be aware of ulterior motives.

That said, Vaknin has really opened my eyes to the thought processes of Narcissists, and I greatly appreciate his efforts to share his understanding with the world.

One of the biggest reasons that Narcissistic Psychopaths are able to thrive and to go on their merry way, manipulating and hurting other people, is that most of us are (thankfully) not equipped to think like them. They are conscienceless. They use people.

Check out the documentary 'I, Psychopath' about Vaknin. (And starring Vaknin, of course.)

I, Psychopath - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Sam Vaknin On YouTube

I forgot to add, Sam Vaknin has a huge number of videos on YouTube, and they are well worth watching.

What's really interesting is that as you read Vaknin's works or listen to his YouTube broadcasts, you will likely find yourself recognizing certain Narcissistic traits in people you have known.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

For a better understanding of the disorders that have been discussed as possible Jack T. Ripper models refer to the DSM IV-TR for a full list of disorders and the characteristics that follow with each one. You will find many that have the same listed qualities, and give no discernible differences between one to another.

For the love of god, do NOT go through the DSM-IV. First of all, half of the Axis 1 listings and ALL of the Axis II listings are going to fit, and secondly you have to know how to use it or you get everything mixed up, and come up with something that in reality would be impossible. In this case, wikipedia is better than the DSM-IV. Wikipedia has straightforward definitions, and you don't have to plow through all the diagnostic criteria.

For example, if you read the DSM-IV on Borderline Personality Disorder, you could easily see how Jack the Ripper could have it. What it doesn't mention is that Borderlines are almost never violent towards others, and 75% of them are female. So it's a bad fit. Wikipedia tells you that, the DSM doesn't.

Most serial killers are narcissists to some degree or another. It goes hand in hand with a lack of empathy. So pick a killer, and barring them being absolutely barking mad delusional, they will be a narcissist. The question is, is that the problem? Clearly it's a problem, but is that what makes them kill, or informs their killing? It's like if a schizophrenic kills someone because he actually despises that person, it's not the schizophrenia that is the problem. Clearly narcissism doesn't help. A lack of empathy doesn't help. Sociopathy doesn't help. But most people with those problems don't kill. Most become fairly successful businessmen. There has to be something else, something that has nothing to do with mental illness. Something obsessional, something psychological (as opposed to neurological or psychiatric) something coming from the killer's experience, belief system, issues. It comes from the intangible, not the structure or the wiring. Cars, no matter how crappy or old, don't just crash. They still requires a driver to screw up somewhere along the line. People are the same.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike, how are you?

I've read Sam Vaknin's stuff for the past five or so years. He's quite an interesting person, though apparently not a genuine PhD.

But he is a genuine Narcissistic Psychopath, and he offers some amazing insights into the mind of other Narcissists.

But please bear in mind that when you are dealing with a Narcissistic Psychopath you must take everything they say with a very large grain of salt... consider the source,
and be aware of ulterior motives.

That said, Vaknin has really opened my eyes to the thought processes of Narcissists, and I greatly appreciate his efforts to share his understanding with the world.

One of the biggest reasons that Narcissistic Psychopaths are able to thrive and to go on their merry way, manipulating and hurting other people, is that most of us are (thankfully) not equipped to think like them. They are conscienceless. They use people.

Check out the documentary 'I, Psychopath' about Vaknin. (And starring Vaknin, of course.)

I, Psychopath - http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/

Best regards,
Archaic

Doing great Archaic! Great info; towboydds and Errata as well.

Sincerely,

Mike

[towboydds]

Wikipedia leaves out the fact that everyone of the disorders that they list dont meet the criteria that they list as being possible. Reading the DSM IV-TR and 'plowing' through the pertinent information gives you the FULL overview of each personality disorder that they list, thus allowing you to define a specific characterization of each disorder, Wiki does not it doesn't even give you enough information to look at to see if Yosemite Sam was a closet tosser or not.

Having personally read the DSM IV-TR 3 times myself, and because I understand the information contained within it, there is no reason to read the lack of information and diagnostic process that Wiki is so proud to stay away from.

[Errata]

Wikipedia leaves out the fact that everyone of the disorders that they list dont meet the criteria that they list as being possible. Reading the DSM IV-TR and 'plowing' through the pertinent information gives you the FULL overview of each personality disorder that they list, thus allowing you to define a specific characterization of each disorder, Wiki does not it doesn't even give you enough information to look at to see if Yosemite Sam was a closet tosser or not.

Having personally read the DSM IV-TR 3 times myself, and because I understand the information contained within it, there is no reason to read the lack of information and diagnostic process that Wiki is so proud to stay away from.

That wasn't a specific you. It was a general you. People who are unfamiliar with psychiatric diagnostic procedure do not need to to root through the DSM. Wikipedia is fine for what most people need. I have had insane arguments on this board over people taking definitions from the DSM without reading any of the accompanying literature, thereby arriving at ludicrous conclusions at to what any given disease is defined as. And don't even get me started on what people think a Paraphilia is.

But the DSM is just that. A diagnostic manual. Which nobody needs to be doing. We can't diagnose Jack the Ripper. We don't know who he is, what his history is, how long he has presented with symptoms, or even what those symptoms are, assuming he has any. Nor in the end does it matter if he was mentally ill or not. No mental illness creates a killer. All it can do is inform a killer's habits and dispensation. If Jack the Ripper was delusional, that's useful information. The reason he was delusional is not, unless it is a condition that would significantly reduce his lifespan. Diagnosis does not, and never has mattered in this case. Symptoms do. He's a serial killer. Statistically speaking he is a narcissist, a sociopath, and had a horrible childhood. The only way that isn't true is if he was delusional and/or hallucinating. So, one or the other. And if he was delusional or hallucinating, the only relevant reasons are tertiary syphilis and acute schizophrenia. And he wasn't schizophrenic.

When I tell people I'm bipolar, they think they know what my problem is. They don't. The label confuses. If I tell them what my symptoms are, they know what my problem is. And most of them are then puzzled as to why I would be labeled bipolar. It's an accurate diagnosis, as far as the DSM goes. It is simply not terribly descriptive in my case. And in many cases. The diagnosis isn't going to help anyone to get me. The symptoms will. You don't need to have OCD to be obsessive, you don't have to have antisocial personality disorder to be a violent person, you don't have to be a schizophrenic to hallucinate.

If you want to read the DSM-IV, knock yourself out. I don't know how much other diagnostic information you have available to you, statistics, demographics, probable comorbidities etc. So if you have that information, you can use it successfully. If you don't, then you can't. You are really going to be the only person invested in your success or failure on this, so do whatever moves you. But we don't need sophisticated diagnostic criteria for this case. We don't need any diagnostic criteria for this case. Quite frankly in 1888 industrial poisoning is just as likely as anything in the DSM. Describing symptoms is more than enough. Without a physiological analog, no diagnosis matters even if it could be arrived at. And it can't.

[Barnaby]

Good points, Errata. I agree with many of them. There is a danger of labeling issue we should try to avoid. Just like a first year medical student reads about various illnesses and thinks I must have that, I must have that, I must have that...so too it is very easy to read some diagnostic criteria and conclude that Jack must be antisocial, narcissitic, a paranoid schiozophrenic, in a dissociative state, etc. And unless Jack was a raving madman hearing the ancient aliens in his head mandating that he must kill, these disorders alone wouldn't be explanatory causes for me. The prisons are full of antisocials, yes, but most are not serial killers.

I was reading a study showing that antisocials have a smaller amygdala than normal controls, but it is hard to determine if this is a cause of the disorder or an effect of a continued pattern of social behavior. In any event, a thought experiment is to compare the brains of serial killers with the brains of antisocials (or narcissists or whomever) who do not kill. Would we find a difference? I really suspect not, which is troubling to me because it suggests that the difference between Jack the Rippper and a guy who embezzles from his company and frequents prostitutes because he hates relationships might be...well chance. Or at least we haven't identified the environmental triggers.

[Errata]

Good points, Errata. I agree with many of them. There is a danger of labeling issue we should try to avoid. Just like a first year medical student reads about various illnesses and thinks I must have that, I must have that, I must have that...so too it is very easy to read some diagnostic criteria and conclude that Jack must be antisocial, narcissitic, a paranoid schiozophrenic, in a dissociative state, etc. And unless Jack was a raving madman hearing the ancient aliens in his head mandating that he must kill, these disorders alone wouldn't be explanatory causes for me. The prisons are full of antisocials, yes, but most are not serial killers.

I was reading a study showing that antisocials have a smaller amygdala than normal controls, but it is hard to determine if this is a cause of the disorder or an effect of a continued pattern of social behavior. In any event, a thought experiment is to compare the brains of serial killers with the brains of antisocials (or narcissists or whomever) who do not kill. Would we find a difference? I really suspect not, which is troubling to me because it suggests that the difference between Jack the Rippper and a guy who embezzles from his company and frequents prostitutes because he hates relationships might be...well chance. Or at least we haven't identified the environmental triggers.

For example, as I said, I am bipolar. Bipolar people can be violent. It's not common, but not unheard of. They very rarely kill, and when they do it is almost always either an accident, or a result of psychosis triggered by the extremes of the disease. Despite my bipolar, which can cause violent behavior, it cannot cause violent behavior in me. I don't have that kind of bipolar. I could kill myself, but not others. So Bipolar disorder does not cause violent behavior. Specific manifestations of mania can cause violent behavior. Other manifestations of mania result in crippling debt, and still other types of mania result in a string of STDs. But the most common manifestation of mania just causes people to talk really fast and not sleep.

One of the issues with identifying the genesis of a serial killer is the peculiar nature of serial killers. There is a component of need, of obsession that is not present in other killers. Antisocials do have a smaller amygdala. Sociopaths have poorly developed frontal lobes, there is a "Warrior" gene that causes aggression, a host of neurological or biological problems that cause psychiatric problems. And any of these problems can result in violence. It accounts for someone who beats another man to death in a bar. It accounts for hit men. Any of these conditions can result in a general disregard for human life that makes murder an acceptable solution to a problem. But none of these conditions cause a person to enjoy killing, or to pursue it for it's own ends. And none of these conditions accounts for the ritualistic behavior of what we consider to be serial killers.

Let's take Jeffrey Dahmer for example. It's entirely possible he was a narcissist. It didn't make him kill, but it probably helped him live with it. It's a toss up as to whether or not he was a sociopath. Certain statements and actions could lead one to believe that he was not incapable of empathy, but he clearly had none for his victims. He had a delusion. He thought that by destroying certain parts of the brain he could create a docile sex zombie. Except that wasn't really the delusional part, because in theory he was absolutely correct. The delusional part was that he thought he could successfully do it in his living room. But that delusion didn't cause him to kill. He had been doing that long before he came up with him zombie sex slave notion. It just informed part of his ritual. He also had a component of religiosity. He thought he was what he was because he was possessed by the Devil. But that didn't cause him to kill either. It was simply the best explanation for his behavior he could come up with.

But it's not about what caused him to kill. It's about what caused him to kill the way he did. His victimology is pretty straightforward. And since he killed most of them after having sex with them, a classic Freudian interpretation would suggest that he despised his own homosexuality. But that's not a psychiatric condition. Nor is it neurological. It's social. On the other hand, why on earth did his behavior start manifesting when he was about 10? It's the start of puberty, a time of massive changes in the brain. It's also the beginnings of sexual identity. The age of the change strongly indicates a neurological issue, but there is no neurological disorder that causes a fascination with death. He was an alcoholic by the time he was 15. With any teenage alcoholic, it's a classic sign of profound unhappiness. Possibly even clinical depression. But neither alcoholism nor depression creates serial killers. His first kill is at 18. He had been unspooling for eight years, clearly a profoundly troubled child. But he didn't kill his first victim because he was fascinated with death, or ashamed of his sexuality. He didn't kill him for some insane reason. He killed him because he didn't want the guy to leave. Which happens a lot. Married couples kill each other all the time to try and keep the other from leaving. It's a panic reaction.

Despite all his problems, he became a killer for a pretty mundane reason. He panicked. And clearly it didn't awaken some dark urge within him, because he didn't kill again for like, another decade. His second kill is what made him what he was. He was 28 at that point, no more neurological changes, no more hormonal changes, and he had been living with his problems for 18 years at that point. Nothing was new, no condition had asserted itself. He was the same guy he had been 5 years earlier. So why kill this guy when he did? We will never know. Why did that murder cause him to suddenly want to commit more murders? We will never know. Clearly something clicked in his head. Evidently, his second murder was exciting and enjoyable, where his first was not. And it's a murder we know almost nothing about.

Take your average hit man, and they don't have strong beliefs about the sanctity of human life. Classic sociopathy. Take an antisocial, have someone rear end his car, and it's a 50/50 shot as to whether he will kill the person who hit him. Clear cause and effect as far as disorder and violent behavior goes. Nothing like that exists for serial killers. There have been extensive interviews with serial killers, and we still don't know. There is clearly an addictive component, an obsessional component, often times there are signs of neurological changes at puberty, but not all serial killers have abnormal MRIs as far as we can tell. Most serial killer behaviors are so inexplicable that there is no medical explanation. It's enough to make a person believe in disorders of the soul. In the end, I'm not even sure there is a difference between serial killers and the rest of us. Maybe any of us could go that route, given the opportunity. We're all capable of addiction. And if there is any disorder comparable to serial killing, it's addiction. Serial killers are all chasing the high. And we all get a thrill from breaking moral imperatives and indulging in taboos. Maybe in the end it's a social disease. It is an ability to conform to societal norms.