Making Sense of Antisocial Characteristics

Source: Matthew Sharps

In our last Forensic View, we saw that some of the mental patterns we create in our minds might initially appear correct but may, in fact, ultimately prove wildly inaccurate. In this post, let’s see how we can avoid this situation in an area of great importance to many people: dealing with those who have antisocial tendencies.

Understanding feature-intensive and gestalt analyses

Cognitively, human beings operate on a continuum between feature-intensive (FI) and gestalt (G) analyses. FI cognitive processing allows us to evaluate the elements of given situations with reference to the specific features of those elements in isolation, and it is critical in evaluating those elements. G processing is much faster and, hence, less effortful than FI processing because, in G processing, we examine an entire given pattern, the gestalt with which we are confronted, with very limited attention to the individual features of that pattern.

G processing is necessary for us to form broad general ideas, but when we use G processing in situations in which FI processing is actually necessary, we tend to make a lot of mistakes (Sharps, 2003, 2022a,b). This would seem to make FI processing the way to go in most situations. Even though it is more effortful, it allows us to gain a better understanding of the important elements of any given situation.

However, intense concentration on the features of given situation elements may prevent us from pulling back and understanding the overall pattern within which those elements reside. The understanding of complex situations requires systematic movement along the cognitive continuum between gestalt and feature-intensive analysis.

This is why successful criminal investigators tend to engage implicitly in this type of analysis in aggregate, in which relevant features, initially addressed in FI detail in isolation, are then fit back into the overall G pattern with reference to the connections among those elements. A successful investigator typically swings systematically back and forth between gestalt and feature-intensive analysis of a given criminal situation, building an accurate picture of the G patterns of interest while preserving the ability to evaluate given elements of those patterns in FI detail with reference to their interconnectedness.

This type of analysis in aggregate, which is so useful for detectives, may also prove very productive, in many situations, for the rest of us.

Consider individuals who have been victimized, in personal or economic relationships, by others with antisocial tendencies.

Not all people with such tendencies victimize others, of course, and there are many people without such tendencies who may victimize others. However, the pattern of victimization when antisocial tendencies are involved tends to exhibit some commonalities among cases. The individual with antisocial tendencies (IAT) may frequently and repeatedly create chaotic situations for which the victim is required, by the implicit or explicit terms of the given relationship, to pay in terms of effort, attention, or finances.

Frequently, these situations are outlandish, and persons outside the relationship, sometimes including mental health professionals, may express astonishment at the apparent gullibility of the victim: How could anybody keep going along with these bizarre and damaging situations again and again? Continuous weird problems with vehicles; repeatedly unpaid bills; expensive and unnecessary purchases; continual fights with neighbors and co-workers, resulting in serial job loss or other forms of hardship; involvement in bizarre relationships with others who also require the money or time of the victim—these are typical, but when the victim confronts the IAT about them, the IAT frequently responds with a justification, sometimes quite elaborate, explaining why he or she was never at fault. It was always something or somebody else who caused the given problem.

Why doesn’t the victim see the pattern?

The reason is that from the cognitive perspective of the victim, there may not seem to be any pattern at all.

Confronted with any single bizarre problem, our tendency may be to address that problem in isolation in order to find the optimal, specific, feature-intensive solutions. Because of the strain created by the problem itself, and often because of a self-defensive display on the part of the IAT who caused the problem in the first place, the resultant stress may reduce the cognitive power of the victim operating on the problem, fostering a kind of “tunnel vision” (see Sharps, 2022a,b), which may focus the victim’s attention on the feature-intensive elements of the specific problem itself and on the frequently illegitimate justifications of the situation constructed by the IAT; this may limit the cognitive resources needed for assessment of the overall repeated patterns of behavior in aggregate.

Feature-intensive analysis is typically our best approach to many complex problems. However, in this type of victimization, it is important to make use of analysis in aggregate, moving back and forth, cognitively and as needed, along the continuum from the individual instance to the overall pattern of multiple instances of victimization. Again, successful law enforcement investigators tend to engage in this type of analysis on an implicit basis.

Forensic Psychology Essential Reads

Assassins and Their Fixations

The Psychology of Public Humiliation

However, an explicit understanding of these cognitive components of analysis may help the rest of us to use both feature-intensive and gestalt analyses systematically, to take perspective on any given crisis and examine it, from both G and FI perspectives, in the context of other crises largely or entirely created by the IAT. Analysis in aggregate may make it possible to see the overall pattern without focusing too intensively on the crisis of the moment. This analysis may then allow us to understand the connections among the various elements of the relevant pattern and the general behavioral trends those connections indicate.

This type of analysis may prove very useful in many situations, but it may prove particularly helpful for individuals victimized by repeated antisocial behavior, both in understanding the behaviors and in developing solutions for successful resilience and recovery. Hopefully, this will benefit both the individual with antisocial tendencies and the victim.