The first argument is an appeal to free will. We assume Alice can, and so must, escape. I’ve explained why this is a fallacy. Even if Alice realizes, "Mallory may be a psychopath," often she cannot just leave. The bonds are deep, and they override conscious decision-making. Alice may be a child, living with a psychopathic parent. Alice may share children with Mallory. Then she may face the agonizing choice of saving herself, or staying with them. Alice may live behind a wall.
The second argument is appeal to authority. "If Mallory is a psychopath like you say, then just tell the police. They will arrest him and save you." This assumes Mallory is silent and cannot tell lies that outshine Alice’s truths. Which he can, and will. It assumes authority is honest and fair. It assumes Mallory cannot charm authority to get all the sympathy he needs. Authority is often more likely to punish Alice than save her.
The third argument is the illusion of safety. "It could be worse, don’t provoke him." This is what Alice tells herself, over and over. Others will often repeat that. Even if Alice explains how bad things are, people may still tell her, "try and make it work." The assumption is that fighting back makes things worse.
The final argument is the assumption of immediate danger. "He could kill you, you must leave NOW!" Once the illusion of safety breaks, a panic sets in. We assume that Alice risks injury and death if she stays with Mallory. Thus, Alice must get away from Mallory as fast as she can. I’ll explain why this also a fallacy, at least in most cases.
Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones
We make a major assumption about psychopaths in popular fiction, and in clinical research. The assumption repeats over and over. It defines how the police and courts deal with Mallory. It defines how we try to help Bob in his struggle to free himself from Mallory.
The assumption is: the main danger from psychopaths is physical.
Yes, psychopaths can inflict physical damage to others. Between 1-2% of men and women experience domestic violence in a year. 20-25% of both genders experience it during their lifetimes. Yet this is neither exclusive to psychopaths, nor is it the worst damage they do. The assumption is almost valid, yet is not. Mallory does do real damage. Yet for every physical assault, she delivers hundreds of non-physical blows. These are emotional, social, and economic. She is much more likely to drive her victims to suicide, than to murder them. When you look at psychopathy as a disease that damages Alice and Bob, it becomes obvious. A parasite or predator must find a balance. Mallory must work in stealth. Overt activity leads to detection.
Only failed, incompetent, or damaged psychopaths resort to physical violence, let alone murder. We saw that serial killers appear to be a tiny subset of psychopaths with a specific form of brain injury. We know that the bulk of psychopaths hide all their lives in the general population. These are the successful ones.
Mallory’s mask of physical threat is a convincing yet thin lie. For sure, there are violent people, and there are violent psychopaths. Mallory will be violent when it works. Yet Mallory is above all pragmatic about hiding and surviving.
The predator lifestyle is risky. A predator cannot afford even minor injuries. Non-human predators attack the weak, the immature, the old. Never a full-strength adult, capable of fighting back. A cow with a broken leg can still eat grass. A lion with a broken leg will starve. This defines the level of violence a predator will exercise. It will choose the easier prey. It will not fight another predator except to survive or reproduce. It will use bluff and noise to intimidate, yet will flee from a real fight.
And so it is with Mallory. Of course she can deal violence, if it is a matter of survival. Yet the risks are almost never worth the potential benefits. If Bob is in a cult compound or cellar, or if he is young, or old, he is vulnerable, and "confront" is bad advice. If Bob is an adult, then Mallory sees any number of ways that he could fight back and hurt her.
We have this stubborn association of psychopathy with aggression and violence. It looks like silent collective hysteria over our ancient predators. "OMG psychopaths!" I believe this is fear, not data, talking.
Why am I arguing against this assumption? Because it takes us in many wrong directions. Above all it misleads us about how to deal with Mallory and the damage she causes.
Here are some of the mistaken paths we’ve taken when dealing with psychopathy in the past:
❂ We used violent criminals as our main source for data about Mallory. This is changing, yet it remains the classic source of data. We under-counted psychopaths, and believed most of them to be male. We did not study how Mallory hides and operates in general society. We did not look at her silent victims.
❂ We used aggression as a tell-tale when looking at juveniles and families. This leads to "treatments" like medication and anti-aggression therapy for at-risk youngsters. We do not consider that Mallory learns to hide from an early age.
❂ We disregard many forms violence in the home. We punish a parent for slapping a child. Yet we tolerate Mallory’s long-term emotional abuse and neglect of those around her.
❂ We often ignore the victims of abuse unless there is provable physical violence. Law enforcement and courts tend to dismiss other forms of abuse, if home life looks "normal."
❂ We do not intervene in obvious cases, such as cults and other abusive organizations. Again, we assume that adults are capable of defending themselves. The State only intervenes when there is serious injury or death, or there are young children.
❂ We hesitate to apply the "psychopath" label, since it brings such negative connotations. That means we strive to treat Mallory the same as we treat Bob. This doctrine of equivalence leads us to assign blame to both parties.
❂ If we do conclude, "Mallory is a psychopath," our reaction is hysteria. We in effect scream "run away!" at Bob, as if he was not already doing his utter best. We have no tools for understanding how Bob got to where he is and why he stays there.
❂ We assume the risk from a psychopath is physical. That is, if Mallory has not yet hurt Bob, so far so good. We tell him to leave, and we hope she does not murder him in his sleep.
❂ We assume that leaving removes the risk. If Bob does leave, we expect him to resume normal life. If he remains depressed, we blame him. If he does not recover, we abandon him. If Bob does not leave Mallory, we assume he’s staying by choice. Again, we blame him and in the end we abandon him.
❂ We may provide support to Bob, yet only if Mallory used physical violence. Alice may find help if she turns it into an issue of women’s rights. If Bob asks for help for emotional abuse, he will find a stone wall, even mockery.
I’ve explained how Mallory hides and operates. I’ve explained why Alice and Bob are normal people who get caught in a trap. Why they stay put. Why they seem to accept their situation. I’ve explained in detail, every single step of the process, from both sides. It is clear that Alice and Bob lose control over their lives quite early on in the process. If they stay with Mallory, it is not from free will.
I’ve also explained the damage that Mallory does to Bob and Alice, and how deep it goes. I’ve explained how and why this can end in depression, self-harm and suicide.
Let’s assume you are Alice or Bob. I’ve shown Mallory to be a slow predator who uses mind-control techniques. She uses these techniques to isolate, restrain, and silence you. The next step is to explain how to undo these techniques and fix your Russia Syndrome.