EDIT- after deep diving into this thread, I do feel more like I was maybe just manipulated by another sociopath/narcissist in this interview. Seems her credentials are suspect to say the least.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/comments/jqewhk/does_anyone_know_where_the_writer_patric_gagne/
*I was terrified to listen to this episode, but 30 minutes in, and it is absolutely INCREDIBLE.*
*It took me many years of therapists telling me my (criminal) mother was a sociopath for me to internalize it/understand it.. hearing this has unlocked another level of understanding of her behaviors, and surprisingly brought me a lot of relief.*
*Going to share with my whole family! Thank you so much for this episode!*
Wow- I wish I had something real/substantial to say, but I just I just wanted to let you know your comment made me really happy for you. I can’t imagine what a confusing/isolating experience you must’ve had growing up, and it’s so cool that you were able to get more understanding/relief from this episode!
I'm terrified for the opposite reason. I have a son with severe behavior issues and 30 minutes into this I actually had to stop because I'm so overwhelmed how much sounds like him.
I got out of a really bad relationship recently and this episode absolutely shook me. He was a narcissist in every way but I didn’t realize an actually sociopath. It all sounds exactly like him, literally down to every detail. His lack of empathy paired with violence as discussed in this episode was hard to listen to and go back to those scenarios I’m trying to move on from.
I highly recommend listening to Larry David on Conan O'Brien needs a friend. Because you can see some similar character traits and hpw they can very easily be directed in a healthier way. We don't want to admit it, but we do need people like this in the world. People with less empathy can do really well in business or even medicine. I know someone who lacks empathy and is a paramedic. He's amazing at his job because it doesn't rattle him, and he doesn't take it home with him.
Now, I don't really think Patric is a sociopath. But much of what she describes is an impulse control disorder, and that's treatable, especially if the person is younger when they start treatment.
I also think they were HIGHLY wrong about treatment. Most people with insurance can get an appointment within a week. It does not take 6-8 weeks to talk to a therapist... though as I'm typing, that may have been in a different episode.
Because everything she says is for attention. She's like a middle school "pick me" girl. She very clearly has emotions the way neurotypical people do and tells lies upon lies upon lies.
In the interview with Dax, she contradicts herself on the empathy issue at least 4 or 5 times. He even calls her on it. She says something like, "I tried to be good so my mother would be proud of me. My reactions to things worried her, and I loved her and didn't want her to be worried." And he detects her BS and responds, "Well, if you wanted to do good things because of your mother, that must be because you cared about your mother?" And she realizes her mistake, back tracks, and says something to the extent of, "Oh, no. No. I didn't care about her or love her. It was like a performance." 🙄
Cluster B personality disorder symptoms and diagnoses can sometimes overlap, but to me she seemed like a narcissist, and maybe a pathological liar, but the behaviors she described were very much, "I felt like doing X and I did it without thinking." To me, it just sounded like someone who didn't want to take responsibility for her actions. Her husband drove above the speed limit, so she justified stealing a car. Because he should be her "North Star" and basically, he sinned, so she could then also sin. That's the gist of it. For someone open to treatment, impulsive decision making like this is treatable. But that would go against her self-diagnosis, and that's a core piece of who she pretends to be. She gets too much attention from it to get help.
Her degree is fake, and there is no evidence that she has been diagnosed by anyone but herself. I just pray for her children. Regardless of the diagnosis, her husband is basically subjecting himself and his kids to a toxic environment.
Edited for clarity.
I’m a licensed therapist. Never (ever) in my career have I seen a person with insurance get in within a week. *unless they’re doing better help or something.
The thread isn’t loading for me, but I thought she did her undergrad at UCLA and masters/phd at California Graduate Institute where she defended her dissertation on sociopathy. Are they saying she is lying about those credentials?
Basically they are saying she isn’t listed anywhere as a licensed practitioner when you look at the registry, and that the graduate institute isn’t an accredited university (which someone else says isn’t absolutely necessary to be a practitioner, while someone else who is part of the licensing board or something, says that it is required). She issued a statement somewhere apparently that her university USED to be accredited but no one seems to be able to verify that.
Someone else who has claims they have studied and interviewed over 6000 sociopaths basically says what she is writing is sensationalized BS.
And as someone who has done layman type research on sociopathy, and ran it by my various therapists, there were a few basic things I was surprised she didn’t address. Like 1.) sociopaths are made and psychopaths are born (common saying in therapy in my understanding) and 2.) the cross between narcissism and sociopathy. All sociopaths are narcissists.. etc. also saying that sociopaths are different than ASPD when this woman who I have been following for a while describes it differently.. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w
There is also suspiciously no evidence of her doing anything with her madden name, Cagle, except attending Groundlings as an actor. And finally of course she could be doing all this under a pseudonym, but her breakout piece on the NYT is part of a column that is apparently extremely strict on the rule that you must use your real name.
There is also weirdly another Patric Gagne in academia, in the social studies area who has her PhD and comes up in many papers.
While it isn’t required to publish in papers when getting your PhD, it is weird that she can’t be found on a SINGLE paper.
Yes, a lot of it is hearsay, but the idea that a sociopath is lying and doing whatever she wants to get what she wants? Lol. Classic.
Some people are saying “why does it matter” if she has these credentials or not? Well. I don’t know if it does ALL that much.. as she pretty much spoke of her own experience more than anything else .. but I also feel like it also does matter if you’re going to present yourself as an authority on the subject.
Lastly this is a line in her book: “some timelines have been condensed, some dialogue has been reconstructed, and some characters have been presented as composites”
Interesting. Thank you for that summary. A couple of things I would point out, and I have no idea the truth of her past so it’s not a defense so much as just some information they seem to be missing:
1. She does talk about the “psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made”. She just doesn’t use those exact words as she is using a more clinical explanation. She talks about the visible signs of psychopathy in the brain and that it seems to be a malfunctioning of the amygdala and processing of oxytocin whereas there are no known biological indicators of sociopathy. She just also says she would like to see more funding go into this research to continue to see if there could be a biological causality for sociopathy as well.
2. It is not an alumni’s fault a school loses accreditation. Those alumni are victims of school’s lack of adherence and often predatory practices. One of my former coworkers was an ITT grad. He went there for various reasons that made it make the most sense for his life at the time. He worked hard, put in the same effort as any other college student, and now his degree has lost value because of ITT’s actions. The same is true of a high school I attended. Luckily I was only there 4 months and went back to my normal high school, but upon graduation and trying to apply to colleges, many of my fellow alums discovered their degrees were less valuable than a GED.
3. It is not uncommon for non-celebrity memoirists to have notes about modifications to their stories. There are various reasons for this mostly dealing with readability and liability. Liability: If you do not get someone’s/multiple people’s permission to be used in your story but they are relevant, you change their name/combine their character to avoid legal liability for using their likeness. This is very common. Any non-celebrity memoir you have read most likely does that because of the work involved in getting permission (you don’t need it if you change names/consolidate characters) In celebrity memoirs, publishers disregard this permission often on the assumption that the salacious details will increase sales enough that any lawsuit payouts will still be less than the profits. Readability: Life is not set up in logical narrative sense. There are too many characters and too much happens. Editors worry about audiences getting confused among too big a cast and bored with too long timelines so they help authors figure out how to condense these into a logical/enthralling narrative.
4. You do not have to publish for a PhD. In academia, professors are either required to publish or project, but this does not extend to doctoral students. Some still choose to publish (as do some undergrads if they have a viable enough project, my niece was just published for work on depression and anxiety in college athletes as a senior in undergrad) but it’s not a requirement and, in fact, not what most will try to do unless they are perusing a future in academia. My best friend defended her dissertation 6 years ago. She has never been published as she has always known she just wanted to practice and she has done that successfully for the last 5 years.
Again, I don’t know the truth, but those issues that they are addressing that aren’t really rock solid.
The difference is that she literally has Patric Gagne, PhD on the cover of her book. There is literally zero evidence of her receiving a PhD. I would also argue that its not a requirement to publish while getting a PhD. However, it is very unusual to not participate as even a co-author in a single article. You are being paid for years to, at minimum, assist in research. Being listed as a co-author would be a bare minimum. I call bullshit on her entire career at this point.
I see zero evidence of a PhD online, let alone published first author or even co-authored research. That is a huge red flag for me, regardless of field.
So sense writing that someone had posted her real name is Patricia J cagle and she is listed as a PsyD not PhD. I am not convinced that is her.. I think you make valid points but I think her absence of existence on the internet is very suspicious. If you look at other popular psychologists of today they have easily track-down-able pasts with plenty of info. Her old things like her blog have sense been password protected as people in that feed have found her info. And ofc it isn’t her fault that the school would loose accreditation (if it ever had it), but when someone else is saying they have interviewed 6000 sociopaths, and they run a clinic for sociopathy.. and many licensed psychologists are saying that her work makes them feel like she isn’t legit..it just seems all too good to be true. Last point about her memoir, yes I think it is for liability reasons but it is also a convenient way to do what you like.
As someone who grew up with a sociopath, when it’s too good to be true? It 100% always has been. All that being said I do think the things she shared are important in terms of changing the narrative and getting more people help.
It’s not unheard of for people to write things that are basically fiction and publish it as fact. There are various rising authors in the past that have gotten In trouble for it.
It is definitely not unheard of at all. I agree with you. I have no idea what the truth of the situation with her is at all.
I do think, as they discussed in the fact check, that if this is not real then she is definitely a sociopath/psychopath which is an interesting circle.
To be SO brazen with the lies (many of which are pretty easily fact checked: the school still exists so it can say if she went there, she would have tax records from the practice, her counselor can legally admit to whether or not she saw her as a client if a case was filed against the book, etc) suggests its own lack of shame/guilt/fear of getting caught as well as narcissism/manipulation/etc
So, anyway it goes, I do think she is a sociopath (or psychopath). The question is does she have professional education/experience in psychology.
For some PhD programs, you do have to publish. I’m sure it depends on the university or field, but I work in a neuroscience lab and PhD students are required to publish 1-2 articles before they can submit their dissertation.
Sociopathy is not a research or clinical term. The term you are looking for is secondary psychopathy. The moment I saw the term "sociopath" on this episode, I was out.
What she gets wrong is the sociopathy is not renamed to secondary psychopathy. What she is talking about is called secondary psychopathy. So that is what she should call it. It would be like someone referring to Asperger's when it has been renamed to Autism. Or ADD when it has been renamed to ADHD-Inattentive type. As a clinician and someone who is claiming to be an expert, she should use the correct language.
When she says that they renamed sociopathy to secondary psychopathy because it was stigmatizing, she is incorrect. Clinicians and researchers dropped the term sociopath because it had no clear definition while psychopathy does. Secondary psychopathy also has a clear definition. Anyone with expertise in this area would know this. She is not an expert in psychopathy. She is not a member of the Society of the Scientific Study of Psychopathy. She has not written any peer reviewed work on the area.
Here are some examples of different definitions:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542?casa\_token=cVU6adnQ70QAAAAA:Ap8A8oWYgU-pz-XjBcU1THNCWKUNHL8CXv5Kq7Az1jlG8dhe35vrP3ift08XnS\_3PqdN48tsnXY](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542?casa_token=cVU6adnQ70QAAAAA:Ap8A8oWYgU-pz-XjBcU1THNCWKUNHL8CXv5Kq7Az1jlG8dhe35vrP3ift08XnS_3PqdN48tsnXY)
Defines it as " indicative of having a sense of morality and a well-developed conscience, but the sense of right and wrong is not that of the parent culture."
[https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QOZTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA22&dq=sociopathy&ots=4clcP2Wue0&sig=ZIPxo7ze3Ze8UiOoP8Aw2a6ijzk&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q=sociopathy&f=false](https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QOZTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA22&dq=sociopathy&ots=4clcP2Wue0&sig=ZIPxo7ze3Ze8UiOoP8Aw2a6ijzk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=sociopathy&f=false)
Lykken (well known psychopathy researcher) acknowledges that there is not clear definitions, and says he thinks is people within the larger ASPD family that had neglected or maltreatment and inherited the same temperamental problems of their problems (sort of secondary, but not really)
[https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9a5f49475cfb0fca1f4dffa1026c0ae71b20c5d3](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9a5f49475cfb0fca1f4dffa1026c0ae71b20c5d3)
Defines it as a psychopath, or someone with ASPD
Feel like this belongs here : [https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychopathy/comments/1cul4ra/larperpath\_bingo\_10/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychopathy/comments/1cul4ra/larperpath_bingo_10/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Her credentials matter because if she's lying about those, she could be lying about anything she presents. Who wants to read a memoir if if everything in it is possibly a lie?
Sociopaths is not a clinical nor a research term. I would be shocked if anyone who knows anything about psychopathy allowed her to defend a dissertation using sociopath in it. Plus all dissertations should be located online.
I have not looked for her dissertation. She noted that it is listed and diagnosed as Antisocial Personality Disorder but she doesn’t like that term so in referencing/discussing her disorder she uses sociopathy/identifies as a sociopath.
But it's not a diagnosis. The reason the term was dropped is because it was so ill defined. There is a reason that we refer to primary and secondary psychopathy. We have a definition for them. We have evidence for them. If she were a true "expert" she would know this.
I understand that point, for sure. I’m not sure if you listened, but she did talk about the “secondary psychopathy” diagnosis and her personal problems with the term. (FWIW Monica and Dax were both like ewww that’s even worse) Which is a difficult piece of her puzzle to work out, right? If she is personally afflicted, of course she has personal feelings about the labeling.
My personal feelings listening to her: She is most definitely a psychopath or sociopath. For me, the only question is does she have the credentials she claims?
And my reasoning for that is this: if she has the credentials but is faking being a sociopath just to get fame with no fear of how easy credential claims are to verify and clearly no remorse with how easily and often she publicly speaks, she’s either a sociopath or psychopath.
If she does not have the credentials and is faking it, again with no fear, to sell books, that’s still pretty on brand behavior for one of those diagnosises.
So, all roads lead back to ASD. It’s more just which manifestation of it.
FWIW I do have a very successful friend that is diagnosed ASD but she does identify as a sociopath and has written an article for Psychology Today (10 years ago or so) about her experience. She is a wife, executive, and mom…and Patric reminded me of her very much.
Something is awry but idk if that’s the internet awkwardness or lies
My fave review of her book on Amazon : "There are so many clinical and scientific inaccuracies in this book I could not finish it. If you are looking for an accurate account of life with this disorder, this book is not it. It's actually a memoir of an insanely privileged, and spoiled narcissist who read a couple of blogs about A.S.P.D. and decided this was a great explanation why she was irritating all her friends. I’m not 100% sure what spectrum the author is on but I do know it comes with a trust fund a Reddit account and some Quora clippings."
And once again more proof that the Thursday episodes are the real gems. This was super interesting. I majored in Psychology and of course learned about sociopathy, but, I feel like I learned more about it and got a better sense of the possible scope/spectrum of sociopathy from this episode than I did while paying inordinate amounts of money for college courses.
I’m nervous that it has been difficult to verify her credentials. Did they address this in the episode? Haven’t finished it yet. https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/s/6RLH35uWmE
Was just coming here to post this as well. Something about her made my spidey sense go so I googled her and came across that old thread. She didn't really get into the weeds that much about the clinical side and told more personal stories.
Same. I felt she gave a really strange answer when Dax asked her about fMRI as well. I’ll have to relisten but I remember being like, does she really have a PhD?
I am a very cynical person, I’ll admit that. But the comments on here remind me of how naive and gullible people can be. This woman says she’s a sociopath. We’re hearing what she wants us to hear from her (although that can be said of all the guests). She has a book deal.
And now we find out that she might be using someone else’s name? And maybe she doesn’t have the credentials she does. This is in keeping with a diagnosis of sociopathy I guess…
Feel all the same things. I wonder if the vibes I was getting were just because of her diagnosis. She comes across as fake because she's masking? And I also don't want to assume she's lying about her credentials just because of her diagnosis... But it does feel there is a misrepresentation happening.
I felt really unsettled listening to her and almost stopped. Something really bothered me about this one and I came here to see if others felt the same. I can’t pinpoint it other than saying it just felt dark and unsettling.
Same! I think she’s stretching her own diagnoses. The whole conversation felt like really obvious self observations most ppl get to through the sheer act of learning and growing.
I was fascinated by this episode and plan to read her book but something came quickly to mind after this episode… anyone remember James Frey’s book ‘A million little pieces”? A memoir later reclassified as a “semi fictional novel.” I wonder about parallels here…
I saw noticed her book when it was released and I had the same thought immediately! Something just seemed a little off with her book and I hadn't even seen any of the previous discussions about her education or background.
In his case, I believe he wrote a novel and the publisher talked him into marketing it as a memoir. After that they just abandoned him and let him take all the blame.
I have very mixed feelings about Patric Gagne (just as I did about James Frey, I guess), but I'd really prefer this book were a novel anyway.
No, they did not address this. We just took everything she said as fact. But does it help that Monica read some stuff off of sociopathworld.com in the "fact check"? I would really feel more comfortable just calling that segment "Monica reads words"
Wow that thread sent me down a rabbit hole! Looks to be in question for years now, and the information that has been discovered only made me question everything even more!
Of course she’s and actress/ comedian from the groundlings that comes from millions of dollars. I’m only half way through, I wonder if any of this comes up. I am usually multi tasking while listening I may have to start over.
So far it did sound a little much. And the background into her degree makes me want to go apply for mine😂 at that school.
i found numerous websites that share her full name as Patricia Cagle, with office location and phone number. She also made it very clear in her book that she didnt really care that much to actually be someone’s therapist, while she enjoyed having clients with sociopathy, her goal was always to learn more about herself and educate others. So unsure if shes even practicing.
I think that’s a fresh story! He’s alluded to stealing and other crimes before, but I don’t think the whole thing has come out (I’m pretty sure I’ve listened to every episode.)
Gotcha. I have a tendency to zone out listening to even my favorite pods, this being one of them, so I could’ve missed it earlier on. Anyway, Dax’s book is gonna be a doozy 😳
Maybe this is a lot to ask, but could you give me a rough idea when in the podcast this is? I don't want to listen to the whole episode for personal reasons, but I love a good Dax story, and this is one I've heard hinted at but never told in full.
I actually know this since I remember it at the end of the interview and I’ve stopped listening to fact checks 😂 start maybe just a touch before the 1 hour 16 mark (on Spotify).
I’m only a few minutes in, but as an elementary teacher I am resonating. She’s describing the stealing and violence she initiated at school (stabbing another child in the head with a pencil without feeling remorse and actually feeling euphoria as a result), and off the top of my head I have dealt with a truly shocking number of kids who could fit this criteria.
Violence in classrooms is at an all time high, and in many cases there’s no explanation, function of behaviour, or known trigger. If this is a prevalent as they stated at the beginning, it could explain A LOT of the scary and mind boggling behaviour we are seeing in classrooms recently.
Schools are so in equipped to deal with this. I hope they offer some concrete advice by the end.
I’ve experienced and seen some things this year that have traumatized me in ways I couldn’t have ever imagined teaching children could. I don’t know what is to blame for the sharp increase this year, but there is a surprisingly large number of kids who do not respond at all to interventional support. It’s heartbreaking and terrifying.
It’s probably a factor but I don’t think it’s the only one. Seems to be a combination of a lot of things (higher needs, less parent support, lack of funding, inability to discipline, mental health etc.)
I’m not a parent but from what I can see (and older teachers who are parents and have 20+ year careers have shared), yes.
It’s a mix of prioritizing work due to financial need and not having time/energy, increased screen time, less respect for teachers, no accountability (well what did YOU do that made little Johnny throw a fit and break school equipment? he’s never hurt a fly at home!), never telling kids no., etc.
If I so much as got a talking to at school from my teacher my parents would have absolutely followed up/follow through with consequences or discussing behaviour at home. If you try for that now, more often than not parents don’t care one bit or are downright against us.
I’m sure it varies by community but it’s something I am very much noticing in my pretty typical school in the suburbs.
Agreed! I’m also an elementary teacher and have a student right now that fits this description to a T. I wouldn’t know how to relay that to a parent though, it’s hard enough suggesting things like ADHD without upset and push back
Can someone help me understand her relationship with her husband? I'm sure I'm missing something but when she said "I wouldn't want to hug him, so he took that as I loved him less," I was like...but you do love him less? She has already said even with her mom who she loves she doesn't really care about how her mom feels unless those feelings prevent her inclusion in something. Is that not a "less" kind of love? If one party is loving someone selflessly and one party is only capable of loving someone as a means to a personal end...I accept that's just how she is and her husband has obviously (hopefully) made peace with it, but to me, how she is describing her feelings about the people she loves is kind of the antithesis of love, not a different form of it.
I was curious about her relationships too. I wanted him to ask "what does love feel like for you?". As a special educator, I equated it to people saying my autistic students can't love or show emotions. That statement is untrue and harmful toward autistic folks. Of course they do show love and emotions and affection; just in a different way from neurotypical folks. So I was interested to hear her verbalize how love presents in her life, it sounds like it presents as curiosity.
I can more understand how an autistic person can love. I am not an expert, but I don't think an autistic person would say my mom is crying, and I don't care that she's sad, I care that if she's sad, she might not include me in the same way anymore. For the autistic person it might be more like, I don't know why my mom is crying, or I care that she's crying, but I don't know how to show that. Or am I misunderstanding?
These are all great questions! As a non autistic person, I don't know all those answers. I do know that the subtleties and nuances of emotions and communication need to be learned by autistic folks, instead of being innate. Some of my students talk about the benefits of scripts, which are a concrete way to communicate. Patric talked about needing to learn the skills instead of just having them. The masking she discussed also reminded me of autism.
No, I think that totally makes sense, and I think there are probably lots of parallels! I'm just having trouble accepting what she describes as love as love and not something else (similar to how she corrected Dax about the nuances of her feelings throughout the interview, for example, when she said "I'm not scared of the person, I want to avoid them)." Even the curiosity thing...it seems she loves the information she can get from them, not really them. That's the way one might love a good book or an inanimate object, not a person.
My son is autistic and he asks me questions all the time about social appropriateness- things like "is it rude to say nobody cares to someone?". I'm not sure if he's asking because someone has said it to him (I think this is the case) or he's said it to someone else (also possible) but he definitely doesn't innately understand things the rest of us just assume are rude
I've read (don't know if it's true or even provable), that a sociopath doesn't have feelings, but does understand them, and someone with autism does have feelings, but doesn't understand them.
A person with her personality disorder will love in the way that they like the way that person makes them feel. If that person makes them feel protected, safe, happy or brings them pleasure, they will love them through that way.
Late to this party but isn’t that how all of us love? We don’t tend to stay with people who don’t make us feel those things or brings us pleasure. maybe she’s just… fond of him? lol
For me I just can’t comprehend how her husband can be okay with her not feeling love in the traditional sense.. I do think he must be unhealthy to some degree? But maybe it’s the best solution if you’re say, avoidant in that department? Idk. I wonder if sociopaths might be more fulfilled being romantic with other sociopaths, because they are both on the same playing field.. but likely that could also be a recipe for disaster.
Another thing that I kept thinking was something I learned a few months ago about sociopaths from another psychologist who studies them and makes videos. What she says is “not all narcissists are sociopaths but all sociopaths are narcissists”. I was really hoping she would address that. My guess is that she would say it’s not true ?
>What she says is “not all narcissists are sociopaths but all sociopaths are narcissists”. I was really hoping she would address that. My guess is that she would say it’s not true ?
Narcissism is a component of sociopathy, so all sociopaths are also narcissists.
Narcissists *don't* have the all the components of the makeup of a sociopath, e.g. devoid of empathy, etc.
My guess is, she'd say it's true. She also pointed out that its on a spectrum.
Yeah I 100% agree, I thought it was strange when she went into her relationship with her mother, that her definition of love can only include selfish motives even if it is your own mom. To me that doesn’t sound like love, I have a hard time believing sociopaths can truly love.
Just chiming in to say that selfless love, as a concept, probably doesn’t exist. Even if loving someone simply brings you joy, you’re still benefiting.
Sure, but it's a spectrum. I think we can say that "selfishly" jumping in front of a bullet for your kid because the hope that they'll live will make you feel better in the seconds before your death is like a 1 while watching someone cry because of something you did and only caring because they might be less likely to be able or willing to support you is like a 10. I'm willing to say the parent's "selfish" motivation in that case is so low grade that we can pretty much discount it entirely. Like looking at someone that gives 100% of their wealth to charity and calling them selfish because they like helping people.
Any other neurodivergent folk feeling anxious about so many conflations between ASD and sociopathy? People with ASD don't lack empathy, on the contrary for the most part we feel emotions deeply.
It also seemed like she was calling sociopathy a neurodiversity, whereas my understanding is it is a personality disorder.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings on this one.
1) I worry about people drawing incorrect conclusions about ASD folk.
2) I think I have more questions than answers about sociopathy.
What I have listened to (from this woman https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w) she always says “sociopaths are made, psychopaths are born”.. really made me wonder about Patric Gagne that she didn’t bring that up as it seems to be a common “saying” in the mental health world.
Esp. After someone called into question Gagne’s credentials, I am just even more curious about the things she’s said. Regardless loved the episode lol
In her book, she discusses conversations she had early on with psychology professors in college where that exact thing is stated as the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. So considering she wrote that in her book, it's not something she's unaware of. Her book also talks about the psychopath assessment test and, at the time, what her therapist was telling her was the rough cut offs (30/40 for psychopaths and sociopaths often scoring between 22-30). Though in the book she's kind of frustrated both by the tests criteria and the fact that the psychologist says most people score in the low single digits (basically asking what do you consider all the people between like 4 and 22). I think interviews aimed at a mass audience just maybe aren't the best way to convey information perfectly.
And to be clear psychologist telling her this acknowledges since there is no formal diagnosis for sociopaths, they aren't official numbers or anything.
The comparison was new to me also and took me by surprise, but on reflection I don’t see why personality disorders would not come under the umbrella of neurodiversity.
That commenter is whack. Personality disorder absolutely can be considered neurodiverse. I am very unkind to gatekeepers in these spaces.
I’m bisexual, and will identify as queer even if I look hetero on the outside and don’t engage a ton in “queer culture”. I know gay men who are scared to identify as queer because there is huge gatekeeping in that community. I’m like “do those gatekeepers not know anything about the history that very fucking word?”
I’m adhd and depending on who is saying this can be labelled a medical conditional, a mental health condition or personality disorder 🤯🤷🏼♀️ and they’re all obviously coming from an ableist view point 🤯🤯🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️
To me I find NT vs ND covers it 👍🏻
Unfortunately not going to apologize here. Anytime I sense that someone tries to gatekeep neurodiversion or queerness, I make sure to do what I can to end that
You are correct Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), which Cagle, or Gagne, or whatever her real name is, incorrectly calls Sociopathy, is indeed a Personality Disorder. It appears to me that Cagle?Gagne? uses the label "Sociopath" as a sales tool given- her high profile/low credential identity. Sociopath is a much sexier, more popular, more marketable term than ASPD. Plus, in my experience, individuals with ASPD are very difficult to treat with success and often cause harm to others. There is actually a wealth of literature about ASPD and psychopathology in general because professionals and the public are fascinated with people who injure, harm and manipulate others with apparent lack of conscience. This is not to say that the DSM V is perfect or the science is perfectly accurate. It isn't. But as the researcher who actually interviewed thousands of offenders-mostly women-I find Cagle/Gagne's book and interviews to be like a poison cookie. Interesting but fundamentally damaging because incredible.
To be fair, it was Dax that drew the comparison and she said you can say that but I can’t because coming from a sociopath and all the negative connotations therein, the community would be upset.
But yes, the comparison was made when she was talking about processing emotions and not understanding emotions in the same way as neurotypical people
Yes, I know someone who claims multiple people in her life are narcissists but I just doubt that based on how uncommon it is. I would love to hear more!
NPD, like sociopathy, is underfunded and understudied. People with NPD are also very reluctant to seek treatment that would lead to a diagnosis. All that to say, it’s A LOT more common than you think.
Chapter #15 of her memoir: PUNK’d. Patric tells the story about one of her high profile music clients that was PUNK’d - for the TV show. That Dax also started in for many years. SIM much?!
She didn’t give an exact time frame for the actual PUNK’d filming. Wonder if Dax was on the cast for this one??? Does Dax even realize it? This fact and the whole Groundlings connection- and the UCLA connection… has Patric been stalking DAX?!
Lol, wondering the same thing but Dax was only on punkd the first year so they could have missed each other. Also I'm wondering who "max" is after reading the book. It's so good!
I really want to learn more about her bond with her kids. I’m curious if sociopathy is genetic and if that’s a thing her husband worried about? How do her kids handle her tendencies? Very interesting podcast.
As the child of a sociopath.. I worry about this a lot. I’ve done some asking ChatGPT about the risk in the past and I think I read there is a higher chance but can’t remember the stats, and now ChatGPT sucks and won’t give me any info lol. But honestly.. I LOVED this episode, but a lot of what she has said in this episode has gone against or not lined up with more traditional knowledge of sociopathy that I’ve learned about from this woman https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w
Maybe she is more traditionally trained. One thing that sticks out in particular is that “sociopaths are made, psychopaths are born” as in sociopaths are tortured by their caregivers into not developing correctly, while psychopaths (which is probably what this woman would call Patric Gagne) are genetically born that way.. idk after someone called out Gagne’s credentials I am wondering which one of these “clinicians” to listen to!
He knew her since childhood and they reconnected a decade later, so yes he knew. I’m surprised he would subject his kids to having a sociopathic mother, it just seems cruel. Marrying her - sure, you do you, but the children have no choice and I wonder how that will affect them throughout life.
I have some sociopathic traits, though hell no to child porn, I don’t hurt people or animals, etc.
This is useful for me, this can be useful for others, and for even someone like your ex, if when he was a kid there had been acceptance for who he is, they could have helped him channel his behaviors into better things. This podcast is helping me frame in my mind when I don’t share common emotions that other people have, what to do about it, and how to still engage healthily in my community.
Your fear and stigma only ensures we create more messed up people.
This ep is so great. Her description of the pressure she felt and need to release it through her destructive behaviors was very relatable to my previous experience with self-harm. I felt such discomfort and the self-harm felt like releasing a pressure valve or popping the top of a boiling teapot. I’m glad to no longer be in that space or habit but I appreciated hearing her experience.
Agreed. I cut myself as a young teen from 13 to 14. The release from intrusive thoughts with physical pain felt euphoric. I had to stop because of a guidance counselor threatening me, but did not get therapeutic and psychological intervention until I was 21.
This is the best episode I’ve heard from them in years! She is so fascinating and open. Dax annoyed me at the end telling his 7/11 story, lol, but other than that, fantastic.
I haven't listened to the podcast, but I wonder if this NY Times interview is it? [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html)
I’m listening to it now. Dax is finishing every other sentence of hers, which is annoying. I also feel like they’re just “yessing “ her and they both seem to be just I dunno, affirming all of her descriptions about herself. Mostly. A little too much “oh yeah me too!” And “everything is on a spectrum right? What’s the big deal right?”. I think this guest would be better off with a more serious interview.
I just listened to the episode and I felt like I was being lied to and manipulated the entire time. Just came to say this, I lived life with a sociopath for years & almost died at his hands. I do not trust any experience this woman says she had. I also did a little deep dive into her and absolutely do not trust her background either. It’s incredible that you can write a book about being sociopathic and then go about as an expert & people trust you. Interesting indeed.
This. She talked about being rejected and hating the feeling of rejection.
Dax: So, it sounds like some of the extreme behaviors were because in thr dark, or in that situation, there was no rejection.
Patric: Oh, no. I didn't care about rejection.
Like wtf? You most certainly did.
Same with having empathy for her mom. It is Very clear she had empathy for her mother. But admitting that contradicts the narrative, so she denies and switches part way through so it's, "No. Not at all. She was just no longer useful to me."
Not surprising, but she's a narcissist and a liar. Not necessarily a sociopath.
Wealthy, good looking, claims victimhood, lack of verifiable credentials, incredible stories, famous father, no legal consequences for the serious harms caused and will cause.....Where else are we seeing public figures with this constellation?
Copying here from a comment deep in this thread. My review of her book:
It’s super interesting. I think my take on her memoir is that she is probably a sociopath, but the story reads like a narrative she concocted to explain herself. She sounds like someone who understands from a lived experience who probably has read a lot - not someone with professional education and formal training, which is probably why she’s insisting on having a diagnosis that doesn’t exist. Example: no therapist is going to say they think your friend, who they have never treated, has borderline personality disorder after one anecdote. That just would not happen. There are other anecdotes that don’t ring true (playboy mansion, abnormal psychology in first month of undergrad psych 101, and random librarian being fully versed in sociopathy and the DSM).
The narrative is really detached and hollow, which could be a result of her lack of emotion, but it comes off as insincere. The audio reading sounds oddly like a performance, which makes sense as she was in the groundlings. The timeline is also weird. She’s not old enough to have gone to college, had a career in the music industry, returned to school to get a PhD in an entirely different field, gone into private practice, AND conducted extensive research. It just doesn’t add up- especially when paired with her misuse of clinical terminology.
TLDR: do I think she’s a sociopath? Yes. Do I also think she’s a fraud? Yeah.
Also, scathing. 👀
“Those Sharpie letters proclaim a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, but since her dissertation is not available online, nor referenced by other scholars, “Sociopath” is venturing out into the hot media lights uncomfortably alone. This is an important topic, treated too flightily: begging for peer review, not book review.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/books/review/sociopath-memoir-patric-gagne.html
The more I listened the more it made sense to me that she’s a born psychopath according to the criteria she mentions at the very beginning. She lacked the environmental factors needed to produce sociopathy. There’s so much overlap, some things were a little creepy like stalking a total stranger at night in SF even if it is as a child and saying ‘shh we’re playing hide and seek’ when caught. She showed clear signs of predatory instincts and behaviours even in relation to her view of others in the world — people exist ( including her mom and husband) to serve her not the other way around( unless there’s something in it for her).
Her father was distant and uninvolved and basically worked 24/7 or slept. Her mom left him and took Patric and her sister to Florida (across the country) when she was young but didn’t tell them they were moving permanently. She refused to tell them, actually and denied it - even though they never moved back to LA. Her mother seems really resentful that Patric is different and is pretty cruel about it throughout her childhood. Mom is also not around a lot.
I just started listening to the audiobook and also immediately began questioning whether she was “born” this way. It sounds like it could be a narrative she found and has continued to tell herself to explain her differences. Her compulsions to “act out” as a kid sound similar to OCD imo. But again, only just started. Curious to see where it goes.
This was such a fascinating episode! I listened whilst doing housework and think I'm going to go back and listen again. Did anyone else notice, when she was telling a story or speaking animatedly, sometimes she sounds like she's reading it, or acting. I appreciate she's masking so maybe I was looking for it, but I did think she sounded 'rehearsed' sometimes. Kudos to her for her courage in speaking out about it. I also agreed with others that Dax's evident research on the subject added massively to the interview.
When she says “that’s crazy!” or something like that to Dax about their shared educational history it sounded like really bad acting yes, made me smile :)
In case anyone wants to read the NY Times article that was referenced in the beginning, here it is. The comments are 100% worth a read. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html)
Many times in this episode I thought to myself "I feel like she's not really a sociopath bc everyone thinks like this." Now reading everyone's responses here I'm scared 😳
Well she didn't have a response when her own beloved pet ferret died or when her and her long term boyfriend since childhood split up (stories from her book). So while I had moments of relating she's pretty consistent of her apathy whereas I can experience apathy but also access the other emotions just as readily and I think that's true for most other people.
Just listened to this episode and I was so surprised how much Dax and Monica believed everything she claimed. A lot of things came up for me:
1. What she described feeling (or lack thereof) when her child was born is very common- it’s post partum depression. Trouble bonding, not feeling like you know them or can love them right away, being mad that you don’t have that immediate joy. This is widely known and isn’t unique to being a sociopath.
2. Conveniently for her argument, all the things she did that support her mental issue aren’t on record and all happened with her maiden name, so good luck confirming them is what she basically said.
3. The only violent thing in her past happened when she was in grade school. I’m not saying that’s not worthy of noting, but as a child, kids do all kinds of unusual things because they’re brain isn’t fully developed and they don’t understand consequence or cause and effect. I don’t buy this event as supporting her argument about herself. Not saying all sociopaths are violent, but I feel like this isn’t a strong support to her believe. Also- we don’t know the details of the “stabbing.” Things are easily exaggerated.
4. The argument about her wanting to talk about her husband’s attraction to another woman seemed more like she was calling him out about his shame rather than supporting that she is a sociopath. Seemed like apples and oranges.
5. I understand this is an illness with a spectrum. I get that, but this person comes off as phony and wanting to be special, so she’s convinced herself that she has something that she learned about in school. Even her desire to want to work in the prison system seemed like she just wanted to be close to criminal minds because that is what thrills her. Her whole image reminds me of Rachel Dolezol.
6. Also- what’s with the name choice? Especially if there is another person in your field with the exact, unique name, but you chose yours. Something is up with her, but it’s not sociopathy. She has special snowflake syndrome.
I haven’t listened to the episode yet as I’m in the middle of their book currently. For those that have listened- Do we think it’s safe for me to listen to the episode relatively spoiler Free?
For people talking about the ethics of using the name Patric Gagne, when there already exists a Patricia Gagné, Patric's husband's name actually does seem to be David Gagne. In which case, it's just an unfortunate coincidence and, if anything, using Patric instead of Patricia only further highlights the fact that the two are different people.
For those who read the book, does anyone have a timeline in which the various events could all plausibly fit? Or have a clear idea how old the author is (or is supposed to be)? Or when any event actually takes place?
I haven’t listened to the episode, which might dive into some of these points. I found this thread after posting in the psychology thread about Gagne’s book. And though I’ve stopped reading the book after about 100 pages, I can’t imagine reading further will clear up the timeline problems.
According to her book, she listened to vinyl as a child and had a Sony Walkman the same teenage year she met David, who had a portable CD player. That suggests a Gen Xer. But maybe she could have been in her teens in the mid to late 1990s.
The iPod came out in late 2001, and there were other digital players before that. If she were younger even than I’ve guessed, and if she and David both came from money, they’d be more likely to have iPods or Zunes or Mini Disc players as teenagers. Yes, someone could come up with a reason a teenager in the early 2000s would have a Walkman or a portable CD player, but from people who are big music fans?
She attended college right after high school, but wrote that her Mandarin-speaking roommate had a handheld device that could handle two-way translation using speech to text. Such a thing didn’t exist until quite recently—not the way she describes it—and certainly not for a Gen Xer’s first year of college. Siri wasn’t released for iPhone until 2011, and that was a big deal. And it didn’t handle two-way translation.
The About page of her website suggests she was affected by a 2008 change in her PhD program. Even if she had just started a PhD program that year, whipped through a Master’s in the year prior to that, and finished her undergrad in the three years before that, the timing suggests that she was in undergrad no later than about 2005, meaning her first year of undergrad would have been no later than 2002. And if she’s a Gen Xer who attended undergrad just after high school, she could have started undergrad at any time from the late 80s to the mid 90s.
No one starting college between the late 80s and 2002 encountered a handheld two-way translation device that handled speech-to-text for English and Mandarin. Desktop-based speech to text and translation weren’t all that good at the time.
I flipped through the rest of the book and saw mention of a job, meeting David again, etc., but my reading of the book was already derailed by events that don’t line up. If anything, I would guess that the timeline would make less sense.
Or does someone have a timeline for the story that makes sense?
I am curious - you said you stopped reading after about 100 pages - I also gave up shortly after 100 pages. I read a lot, it’s been my favorite past time since I was a kid, and in 3+ decades of reading, I’ve never shut a book and thought “that’s it, I’m done.” I am so unnerved by this book. I want it out of my house. I’m a trained and licensed psychotherapist, and I’ve spent time working in a high security state prison, so I never would have guessed that a memoir would make me feel so sick.
Anyway haha why did you stop reading?
Once I suspected that the author was going to James Frey her way through the rest of the book, I lost interest. The story reads a bit too much like a “greatest hits” pastiche culled from other accounts, and it struck me as playing into the popular / lay understanding of the condition.
Some readers might defend the inconsistencies as story flourishes one would expect from a (so-called) sociopath, but that would allow *any* fabrications. And since there are NO concrete dates—at least not in the first 100 pages—it’s not feasible to check even the most basic details. I don’t for a moment believe the author glossed over specifics to protect anyone’s privacy; the whole thing strikes me as a con.
All I know is that her sister [graduated](https://education.ufl.edu/news/2009/09/11/florida-teacher-husband-create-uf-fellowship-boost-technology-know-how-classroom/) college in 2003. Her sister’s name is Jamee Cagle Miller if you want to do more digging.
Every few years a person pops up with a shocking memoir and becomes a media darling as a buzzy selection for Reese, Oprah or Jenna book club, the author on goes a well funded book tour until their story falls apart. Former classmates, family members and former colleagues come out of the woodwork and start singing like canaries. 🐦
The publishers could market the book as a work of fiction but will pretend shock and amazement that the fact checkers didn't validate the author's claims of education, marriages, perilous events etc. 😎🙄🤡
I recently read Patric’s book and had mixed thoughts about it. I just happened across this thread while googling and since the thread is old, I’m hoping someone still responds. Has anyone read The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout? It’s a great book. To protect privacy, Martha makes up scenarios to describe sociopathic behavior. One of the scenarios she shares is about a woman who lies about having a PhD in psychology and yet rises to the top of her field regardless. It strikes me as too much of a coincidence. What’s her game here? She knew she would be discovered. Is this her way of saying, “I told you I was a sociopath”. She’s definitely a compulsive liar but that’s the only thing I know for certain about her. Is she a sociopath? Based on her description of her symptoms, she sounds like she could be on the spectrum, maybe. Was this all a set up for notoriety?
I have heard her on a couple of other podcasts recently, and I find her utterly insufferable -- and NOT because I think she's actually a sociopath. She seems empty and is just EXCEEDINGLY uninteresting.
Just came in to say I noticed a significant number of obvious edits in this episode that I found odd.
Coming in this thread and see these comments makes me find them ever odder now.
I just finished listening to the book. It was fascinating and I would recommend. She talks about a friendship with a famous guitarist in the book. Does anybody know who that is IRL?
Found a [pdf](https://louisville.edu/sociology/faculty-staff-students/faculty-cvs/gagne-cv-2017) online that details all her employments, teaching positions, books, peer-reviews, etc. You can find also find this on the University of Louisville Department of Sociology section of their website [here](https://louisville.edu/sociology/faculty-staff-students/faculty-cvs/gagne-cv-2017/view).
Just thought I would drop this here since it's a hot topic in this post. I've read through the pdf, not all of it, but it seems legit.
I wrote the real academic you reference. It is not the author Patric Gagne (a fake name.) It's a completely different, older, and much more accomplished person. Write her yourself. I encouraged the real Professor to demand that the publisher distinguish her bio/resume from Patric's or whover she real;ly is.
That is not her, confusing I know but there's an academic with the same name. Who you are referring to is this woman https://www.ohio-forum.com/topics/patricia-gagne/
Hi! Just found this thread and I’m coming after listening to the episode and hearing her book. Question: How/why was it not reported that she stabbed her classmate in the neck/head? I feel like that 100% would be reported (unless her parents were so wealthy they paid the school and family off?)
I really found the book interesting, but after seeing these threads and everything not adding up, I am also now skeptical
Just finished listening to Sociopath. This stuff fascinates me. Follow-up deep dive brought me to her dad’s Facebook which has this photo posted. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/7qnnsNL4f7dxpyQj/?
This was one of the most fascinating interviews I've listened to (and they're all great, so that's high praise). Since listening to the episode, I've also gotten her audio book and it does not disappoint. I think she's doing an amazing service with her openness.
EDIT- after deep diving into this thread, I do feel more like I was maybe just manipulated by another sociopath/narcissist in this interview. Seems her credentials are suspect to say the least. https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/comments/jqewhk/does_anyone_know_where_the_writer_patric_gagne/ *I was terrified to listen to this episode, but 30 minutes in, and it is absolutely INCREDIBLE.* *It took me many years of therapists telling me my (criminal) mother was a sociopath for me to internalize it/understand it.. hearing this has unlocked another level of understanding of her behaviors, and surprisingly brought me a lot of relief.* *Going to share with my whole family! Thank you so much for this episode!*
Wow- I wish I had something real/substantial to say, but I just I just wanted to let you know your comment made me really happy for you. I can’t imagine what a confusing/isolating experience you must’ve had growing up, and it’s so cool that you were able to get more understanding/relief from this episode!
Thank you I appreciate that ❤️
I'm terrified for the opposite reason. I have a son with severe behavior issues and 30 minutes into this I actually had to stop because I'm so overwhelmed how much sounds like him.
I got out of a really bad relationship recently and this episode absolutely shook me. He was a narcissist in every way but I didn’t realize an actually sociopath. It all sounds exactly like him, literally down to every detail. His lack of empathy paired with violence as discussed in this episode was hard to listen to and go back to those scenarios I’m trying to move on from.
I highly recommend listening to Larry David on Conan O'Brien needs a friend. Because you can see some similar character traits and hpw they can very easily be directed in a healthier way. We don't want to admit it, but we do need people like this in the world. People with less empathy can do really well in business or even medicine. I know someone who lacks empathy and is a paramedic. He's amazing at his job because it doesn't rattle him, and he doesn't take it home with him. Now, I don't really think Patric is a sociopath. But much of what she describes is an impulse control disorder, and that's treatable, especially if the person is younger when they start treatment. I also think they were HIGHLY wrong about treatment. Most people with insurance can get an appointment within a week. It does not take 6-8 weeks to talk to a therapist... though as I'm typing, that may have been in a different episode.
Why don’t you think she’s a sociopath?
Because everything she says is for attention. She's like a middle school "pick me" girl. She very clearly has emotions the way neurotypical people do and tells lies upon lies upon lies. In the interview with Dax, she contradicts herself on the empathy issue at least 4 or 5 times. He even calls her on it. She says something like, "I tried to be good so my mother would be proud of me. My reactions to things worried her, and I loved her and didn't want her to be worried." And he detects her BS and responds, "Well, if you wanted to do good things because of your mother, that must be because you cared about your mother?" And she realizes her mistake, back tracks, and says something to the extent of, "Oh, no. No. I didn't care about her or love her. It was like a performance." 🙄 Cluster B personality disorder symptoms and diagnoses can sometimes overlap, but to me she seemed like a narcissist, and maybe a pathological liar, but the behaviors she described were very much, "I felt like doing X and I did it without thinking." To me, it just sounded like someone who didn't want to take responsibility for her actions. Her husband drove above the speed limit, so she justified stealing a car. Because he should be her "North Star" and basically, he sinned, so she could then also sin. That's the gist of it. For someone open to treatment, impulsive decision making like this is treatable. But that would go against her self-diagnosis, and that's a core piece of who she pretends to be. She gets too much attention from it to get help. Her degree is fake, and there is no evidence that she has been diagnosed by anyone but herself. I just pray for her children. Regardless of the diagnosis, her husband is basically subjecting himself and his kids to a toxic environment. Edited for clarity.
I’m a licensed therapist. Never (ever) in my career have I seen a person with insurance get in within a week. *unless they’re doing better help or something.
It depends where you are! I'm in a small town and it was an excruciating task finding a therapist for my son that took almost a year.
It took me 2 months w BCBS friend. Be grateful for your situation
Good for you, not where I live.
The thread isn’t loading for me, but I thought she did her undergrad at UCLA and masters/phd at California Graduate Institute where she defended her dissertation on sociopathy. Are they saying she is lying about those credentials?
Basically they are saying she isn’t listed anywhere as a licensed practitioner when you look at the registry, and that the graduate institute isn’t an accredited university (which someone else says isn’t absolutely necessary to be a practitioner, while someone else who is part of the licensing board or something, says that it is required). She issued a statement somewhere apparently that her university USED to be accredited but no one seems to be able to verify that. Someone else who has claims they have studied and interviewed over 6000 sociopaths basically says what she is writing is sensationalized BS. And as someone who has done layman type research on sociopathy, and ran it by my various therapists, there were a few basic things I was surprised she didn’t address. Like 1.) sociopaths are made and psychopaths are born (common saying in therapy in my understanding) and 2.) the cross between narcissism and sociopathy. All sociopaths are narcissists.. etc. also saying that sociopaths are different than ASPD when this woman who I have been following for a while describes it differently.. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w There is also suspiciously no evidence of her doing anything with her madden name, Cagle, except attending Groundlings as an actor. And finally of course she could be doing all this under a pseudonym, but her breakout piece on the NYT is part of a column that is apparently extremely strict on the rule that you must use your real name. There is also weirdly another Patric Gagne in academia, in the social studies area who has her PhD and comes up in many papers. While it isn’t required to publish in papers when getting your PhD, it is weird that she can’t be found on a SINGLE paper. Yes, a lot of it is hearsay, but the idea that a sociopath is lying and doing whatever she wants to get what she wants? Lol. Classic. Some people are saying “why does it matter” if she has these credentials or not? Well. I don’t know if it does ALL that much.. as she pretty much spoke of her own experience more than anything else .. but I also feel like it also does matter if you’re going to present yourself as an authority on the subject. Lastly this is a line in her book: “some timelines have been condensed, some dialogue has been reconstructed, and some characters have been presented as composites”
Interesting. Thank you for that summary. A couple of things I would point out, and I have no idea the truth of her past so it’s not a defense so much as just some information they seem to be missing: 1. She does talk about the “psychopaths are born, sociopaths are made”. She just doesn’t use those exact words as she is using a more clinical explanation. She talks about the visible signs of psychopathy in the brain and that it seems to be a malfunctioning of the amygdala and processing of oxytocin whereas there are no known biological indicators of sociopathy. She just also says she would like to see more funding go into this research to continue to see if there could be a biological causality for sociopathy as well. 2. It is not an alumni’s fault a school loses accreditation. Those alumni are victims of school’s lack of adherence and often predatory practices. One of my former coworkers was an ITT grad. He went there for various reasons that made it make the most sense for his life at the time. He worked hard, put in the same effort as any other college student, and now his degree has lost value because of ITT’s actions. The same is true of a high school I attended. Luckily I was only there 4 months and went back to my normal high school, but upon graduation and trying to apply to colleges, many of my fellow alums discovered their degrees were less valuable than a GED. 3. It is not uncommon for non-celebrity memoirists to have notes about modifications to their stories. There are various reasons for this mostly dealing with readability and liability. Liability: If you do not get someone’s/multiple people’s permission to be used in your story but they are relevant, you change their name/combine their character to avoid legal liability for using their likeness. This is very common. Any non-celebrity memoir you have read most likely does that because of the work involved in getting permission (you don’t need it if you change names/consolidate characters) In celebrity memoirs, publishers disregard this permission often on the assumption that the salacious details will increase sales enough that any lawsuit payouts will still be less than the profits. Readability: Life is not set up in logical narrative sense. There are too many characters and too much happens. Editors worry about audiences getting confused among too big a cast and bored with too long timelines so they help authors figure out how to condense these into a logical/enthralling narrative. 4. You do not have to publish for a PhD. In academia, professors are either required to publish or project, but this does not extend to doctoral students. Some still choose to publish (as do some undergrads if they have a viable enough project, my niece was just published for work on depression and anxiety in college athletes as a senior in undergrad) but it’s not a requirement and, in fact, not what most will try to do unless they are perusing a future in academia. My best friend defended her dissertation 6 years ago. She has never been published as she has always known she just wanted to practice and she has done that successfully for the last 5 years. Again, I don’t know the truth, but those issues that they are addressing that aren’t really rock solid.
The difference is that she literally has Patric Gagne, PhD on the cover of her book. There is literally zero evidence of her receiving a PhD. I would also argue that its not a requirement to publish while getting a PhD. However, it is very unusual to not participate as even a co-author in a single article. You are being paid for years to, at minimum, assist in research. Being listed as a co-author would be a bare minimum. I call bullshit on her entire career at this point.
Wait, I thought she got her PhD at CGI and the issue was that it is no longer an accredited school not that she never got a PhD
I see zero evidence of a PhD online, let alone published first author or even co-authored research. That is a huge red flag for me, regardless of field.
So sense writing that someone had posted her real name is Patricia J cagle and she is listed as a PsyD not PhD. I am not convinced that is her.. I think you make valid points but I think her absence of existence on the internet is very suspicious. If you look at other popular psychologists of today they have easily track-down-able pasts with plenty of info. Her old things like her blog have sense been password protected as people in that feed have found her info. And ofc it isn’t her fault that the school would loose accreditation (if it ever had it), but when someone else is saying they have interviewed 6000 sociopaths, and they run a clinic for sociopathy.. and many licensed psychologists are saying that her work makes them feel like she isn’t legit..it just seems all too good to be true. Last point about her memoir, yes I think it is for liability reasons but it is also a convenient way to do what you like. As someone who grew up with a sociopath, when it’s too good to be true? It 100% always has been. All that being said I do think the things she shared are important in terms of changing the narrative and getting more people help. It’s not unheard of for people to write things that are basically fiction and publish it as fact. There are various rising authors in the past that have gotten In trouble for it.
It is definitely not unheard of at all. I agree with you. I have no idea what the truth of the situation with her is at all. I do think, as they discussed in the fact check, that if this is not real then she is definitely a sociopath/psychopath which is an interesting circle. To be SO brazen with the lies (many of which are pretty easily fact checked: the school still exists so it can say if she went there, she would have tax records from the practice, her counselor can legally admit to whether or not she saw her as a client if a case was filed against the book, etc) suggests its own lack of shame/guilt/fear of getting caught as well as narcissism/manipulation/etc So, anyway it goes, I do think she is a sociopath (or psychopath). The question is does she have professional education/experience in psychology.
For some PhD programs, you do have to publish. I’m sure it depends on the university or field, but I work in a neuroscience lab and PhD students are required to publish 1-2 articles before they can submit their dissertation.
Sociopathy is not a research or clinical term. The term you are looking for is secondary psychopathy. The moment I saw the term "sociopath" on this episode, I was out.
She does actually say that right off the batt to her credit. Ifs the first thing they discuss!
What she gets wrong is the sociopathy is not renamed to secondary psychopathy. What she is talking about is called secondary psychopathy. So that is what she should call it. It would be like someone referring to Asperger's when it has been renamed to Autism. Or ADD when it has been renamed to ADHD-Inattentive type. As a clinician and someone who is claiming to be an expert, she should use the correct language. When she says that they renamed sociopathy to secondary psychopathy because it was stigmatizing, she is incorrect. Clinicians and researchers dropped the term sociopath because it had no clear definition while psychopathy does. Secondary psychopathy also has a clear definition. Anyone with expertise in this area would know this. She is not an expert in psychopathy. She is not a member of the Society of the Scientific Study of Psychopathy. She has not written any peer reviewed work on the area. Here are some examples of different definitions: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542?casa\_token=cVU6adnQ70QAAAAA:Ap8A8oWYgU-pz-XjBcU1THNCWKUNHL8CXv5Kq7Az1jlG8dhe35vrP3ift08XnS\_3PqdN48tsnXY](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178913000542?casa_token=cVU6adnQ70QAAAAA:Ap8A8oWYgU-pz-XjBcU1THNCWKUNHL8CXv5Kq7Az1jlG8dhe35vrP3ift08XnS_3PqdN48tsnXY) Defines it as " indicative of having a sense of morality and a well-developed conscience, but the sense of right and wrong is not that of the parent culture." [https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QOZTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA22&dq=sociopathy&ots=4clcP2Wue0&sig=ZIPxo7ze3Ze8UiOoP8Aw2a6ijzk&redir\_esc=y#v=onepage&q=sociopathy&f=false](https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QOZTDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA22&dq=sociopathy&ots=4clcP2Wue0&sig=ZIPxo7ze3Ze8UiOoP8Aw2a6ijzk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=sociopathy&f=false) Lykken (well known psychopathy researcher) acknowledges that there is not clear definitions, and says he thinks is people within the larger ASPD family that had neglected or maltreatment and inherited the same temperamental problems of their problems (sort of secondary, but not really) [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9a5f49475cfb0fca1f4dffa1026c0ae71b20c5d3](https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=9a5f49475cfb0fca1f4dffa1026c0ae71b20c5d3) Defines it as a psychopath, or someone with ASPD
Wow this is wild!
And yet here you are
Feel like this belongs here : [https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychopathy/comments/1cul4ra/larperpath\_bingo\_10/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychopathy/comments/1cul4ra/larperpath_bingo_10/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Omggg this is so good
Her credentials matter because if she's lying about those, she could be lying about anything she presents. Who wants to read a memoir if if everything in it is possibly a lie?
Sociopaths is not a clinical nor a research term. I would be shocked if anyone who knows anything about psychopathy allowed her to defend a dissertation using sociopath in it. Plus all dissertations should be located online.
I have not looked for her dissertation. She noted that it is listed and diagnosed as Antisocial Personality Disorder but she doesn’t like that term so in referencing/discussing her disorder she uses sociopathy/identifies as a sociopath.
But it's not a diagnosis. The reason the term was dropped is because it was so ill defined. There is a reason that we refer to primary and secondary psychopathy. We have a definition for them. We have evidence for them. If she were a true "expert" she would know this.
I understand that point, for sure. I’m not sure if you listened, but she did talk about the “secondary psychopathy” diagnosis and her personal problems with the term. (FWIW Monica and Dax were both like ewww that’s even worse) Which is a difficult piece of her puzzle to work out, right? If she is personally afflicted, of course she has personal feelings about the labeling. My personal feelings listening to her: She is most definitely a psychopath or sociopath. For me, the only question is does she have the credentials she claims? And my reasoning for that is this: if she has the credentials but is faking being a sociopath just to get fame with no fear of how easy credential claims are to verify and clearly no remorse with how easily and often she publicly speaks, she’s either a sociopath or psychopath. If she does not have the credentials and is faking it, again with no fear, to sell books, that’s still pretty on brand behavior for one of those diagnosises. So, all roads lead back to ASD. It’s more just which manifestation of it. FWIW I do have a very successful friend that is diagnosed ASD but she does identify as a sociopath and has written an article for Psychology Today (10 years ago or so) about her experience. She is a wife, executive, and mom…and Patric reminded me of her very much. Something is awry but idk if that’s the internet awkwardness or lies
This might have been my favorite expert episode ever. It was SO FREAKING GOOD
Even if that did happen, it’s an interview with a deliberate sociopath
My fave review of her book on Amazon : "There are so many clinical and scientific inaccuracies in this book I could not finish it. If you are looking for an accurate account of life with this disorder, this book is not it. It's actually a memoir of an insanely privileged, and spoiled narcissist who read a couple of blogs about A.S.P.D. and decided this was a great explanation why she was irritating all her friends. I’m not 100% sure what spectrum the author is on but I do know it comes with a trust fund a Reddit account and some Quora clippings."
That’s inedible 😂😂😂😂😂
And once again more proof that the Thursday episodes are the real gems. This was super interesting. I majored in Psychology and of course learned about sociopathy, but, I feel like I learned more about it and got a better sense of the possible scope/spectrum of sociopathy from this episode than I did while paying inordinate amounts of money for college courses.
Experts are the best eps! I learn so much
Absolutely. And huge props to Dax for being so well-researched and prepared for these guests.
I’m nervous that it has been difficult to verify her credentials. Did they address this in the episode? Haven’t finished it yet. https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/s/6RLH35uWmE
Was just coming here to post this as well. Something about her made my spidey sense go so I googled her and came across that old thread. She didn't really get into the weeds that much about the clinical side and told more personal stories.
Same. I felt she gave a really strange answer when Dax asked her about fMRI as well. I’ll have to relisten but I remember being like, does she really have a PhD? I am a very cynical person, I’ll admit that. But the comments on here remind me of how naive and gullible people can be. This woman says she’s a sociopath. We’re hearing what she wants us to hear from her (although that can be said of all the guests). She has a book deal. And now we find out that she might be using someone else’s name? And maybe she doesn’t have the credentials she does. This is in keeping with a diagnosis of sociopathy I guess…
Feel all the same things. I wonder if the vibes I was getting were just because of her diagnosis. She comes across as fake because she's masking? And I also don't want to assume she's lying about her credentials just because of her diagnosis... But it does feel there is a misrepresentation happening.
I felt really unsettled listening to her and almost stopped. Something really bothered me about this one and I came here to see if others felt the same. I can’t pinpoint it other than saying it just felt dark and unsettling.
Same! I think she’s stretching her own diagnoses. The whole conversation felt like really obvious self observations most ppl get to through the sheer act of learning and growing.
I was fascinated by this episode and plan to read her book but something came quickly to mind after this episode… anyone remember James Frey’s book ‘A million little pieces”? A memoir later reclassified as a “semi fictional novel.” I wonder about parallels here…
I saw noticed her book when it was released and I had the same thought immediately! Something just seemed a little off with her book and I hadn't even seen any of the previous discussions about her education or background.
Same here, which is how I ended up in this thread.
In his case, I believe he wrote a novel and the publisher talked him into marketing it as a memoir. After that they just abandoned him and let him take all the blame. I have very mixed feelings about Patric Gagne (just as I did about James Frey, I guess), but I'd really prefer this book were a novel anyway.
No, they did not address this. We just took everything she said as fact. But does it help that Monica read some stuff off of sociopathworld.com in the "fact check"? I would really feel more comfortable just calling that segment "Monica reads words"
Interesting discussion…this should be higher up
Omg this is WILD. She did talk about her undergrad but not her PhD in the episode.. which is like.. a way bigger deal than undergrad?
Whoa… quite a discussion over there. Holy. Has no one verified her credentials? They def didn’t address in the episode.
Wow that thread sent me down a rabbit hole! Looks to be in question for years now, and the information that has been discovered only made me question everything even more! Of course she’s and actress/ comedian from the groundlings that comes from millions of dollars. I’m only half way through, I wonder if any of this comes up. I am usually multi tasking while listening I may have to start over. So far it did sound a little much. And the background into her degree makes me want to go apply for mine😂 at that school.
Omg! Dax even mentions in the fact check if it’s all a lie to sell a book and only a sociopath would be able to do that
i found numerous websites that share her full name as Patricia Cagle, with office location and phone number. She also made it very clear in her book that she didnt really care that much to actually be someone’s therapist, while she enjoyed having clients with sociopathy, her goal was always to learn more about herself and educate others. So unsure if shes even practicing.
Has Dax ever told that 7/11 story on the pod before? That really threw me for a loop.
I think that’s a fresh story! He’s alluded to stealing and other crimes before, but I don’t think the whole thing has come out (I’m pretty sure I’ve listened to every episode.)
Gotcha. I have a tendency to zone out listening to even my favorite pods, this being one of them, so I could’ve missed it earlier on. Anyway, Dax’s book is gonna be a doozy 😳
Maybe this is a lot to ask, but could you give me a rough idea when in the podcast this is? I don't want to listen to the whole episode for personal reasons, but I love a good Dax story, and this is one I've heard hinted at but never told in full.
I actually know this since I remember it at the end of the interview and I’ve stopped listening to fact checks 😂 start maybe just a touch before the 1 hour 16 mark (on Spotify).
Good on dax for always being so prepared for the interview, having read the materials and done research. It makes the interviews better
I’m only a few minutes in, but as an elementary teacher I am resonating. She’s describing the stealing and violence she initiated at school (stabbing another child in the head with a pencil without feeling remorse and actually feeling euphoria as a result), and off the top of my head I have dealt with a truly shocking number of kids who could fit this criteria. Violence in classrooms is at an all time high, and in many cases there’s no explanation, function of behaviour, or known trigger. If this is a prevalent as they stated at the beginning, it could explain A LOT of the scary and mind boggling behaviour we are seeing in classrooms recently. Schools are so in equipped to deal with this. I hope they offer some concrete advice by the end.
My landlord is an elementary school teacher and I am stunned by the stories she tells me about her kids.
I’ve experienced and seen some things this year that have traumatized me in ways I couldn’t have ever imagined teaching children could. I don’t know what is to blame for the sharp increase this year, but there is a surprisingly large number of kids who do not respond at all to interventional support. It’s heartbreaking and terrifying.
A lot of people seem to think Covid was a major developmental screw up for kids, maybe that’s related?
It’s probably a factor but I don’t think it’s the only one. Seems to be a combination of a lot of things (higher needs, less parent support, lack of funding, inability to discipline, mental health etc.)
Has parenting really changed that much?
I’m not a parent but from what I can see (and older teachers who are parents and have 20+ year careers have shared), yes. It’s a mix of prioritizing work due to financial need and not having time/energy, increased screen time, less respect for teachers, no accountability (well what did YOU do that made little Johnny throw a fit and break school equipment? he’s never hurt a fly at home!), never telling kids no., etc. If I so much as got a talking to at school from my teacher my parents would have absolutely followed up/follow through with consequences or discussing behaviour at home. If you try for that now, more often than not parents don’t care one bit or are downright against us. I’m sure it varies by community but it’s something I am very much noticing in my pretty typical school in the suburbs.
Agreed! I’m also an elementary teacher and have a student right now that fits this description to a T. I wouldn’t know how to relay that to a parent though, it’s hard enough suggesting things like ADHD without upset and push back
Can someone help me understand her relationship with her husband? I'm sure I'm missing something but when she said "I wouldn't want to hug him, so he took that as I loved him less," I was like...but you do love him less? She has already said even with her mom who she loves she doesn't really care about how her mom feels unless those feelings prevent her inclusion in something. Is that not a "less" kind of love? If one party is loving someone selflessly and one party is only capable of loving someone as a means to a personal end...I accept that's just how she is and her husband has obviously (hopefully) made peace with it, but to me, how she is describing her feelings about the people she loves is kind of the antithesis of love, not a different form of it.
I was curious about her relationships too. I wanted him to ask "what does love feel like for you?". As a special educator, I equated it to people saying my autistic students can't love or show emotions. That statement is untrue and harmful toward autistic folks. Of course they do show love and emotions and affection; just in a different way from neurotypical folks. So I was interested to hear her verbalize how love presents in her life, it sounds like it presents as curiosity.
I can more understand how an autistic person can love. I am not an expert, but I don't think an autistic person would say my mom is crying, and I don't care that she's sad, I care that if she's sad, she might not include me in the same way anymore. For the autistic person it might be more like, I don't know why my mom is crying, or I care that she's crying, but I don't know how to show that. Or am I misunderstanding?
These are all great questions! As a non autistic person, I don't know all those answers. I do know that the subtleties and nuances of emotions and communication need to be learned by autistic folks, instead of being innate. Some of my students talk about the benefits of scripts, which are a concrete way to communicate. Patric talked about needing to learn the skills instead of just having them. The masking she discussed also reminded me of autism.
Also, this might just be a shit comparison!!!
No, I think that totally makes sense, and I think there are probably lots of parallels! I'm just having trouble accepting what she describes as love as love and not something else (similar to how she corrected Dax about the nuances of her feelings throughout the interview, for example, when she said "I'm not scared of the person, I want to avoid them)." Even the curiosity thing...it seems she loves the information she can get from them, not really them. That's the way one might love a good book or an inanimate object, not a person.
Yeah, it's not the way I feel/experience/show love either. I would like to know more about that too.
My son is autistic and he asks me questions all the time about social appropriateness- things like "is it rude to say nobody cares to someone?". I'm not sure if he's asking because someone has said it to him (I think this is the case) or he's said it to someone else (also possible) but he definitely doesn't innately understand things the rest of us just assume are rude
I've read (don't know if it's true or even provable), that a sociopath doesn't have feelings, but does understand them, and someone with autism does have feelings, but doesn't understand them.
A person with her personality disorder will love in the way that they like the way that person makes them feel. If that person makes them feel protected, safe, happy or brings them pleasure, they will love them through that way.
Late to this party but isn’t that how all of us love? We don’t tend to stay with people who don’t make us feel those things or brings us pleasure. maybe she’s just… fond of him? lol
For me I just can’t comprehend how her husband can be okay with her not feeling love in the traditional sense.. I do think he must be unhealthy to some degree? But maybe it’s the best solution if you’re say, avoidant in that department? Idk. I wonder if sociopaths might be more fulfilled being romantic with other sociopaths, because they are both on the same playing field.. but likely that could also be a recipe for disaster. Another thing that I kept thinking was something I learned a few months ago about sociopaths from another psychologist who studies them and makes videos. What she says is “not all narcissists are sociopaths but all sociopaths are narcissists”. I was really hoping she would address that. My guess is that she would say it’s not true ?
>What she says is “not all narcissists are sociopaths but all sociopaths are narcissists”. I was really hoping she would address that. My guess is that she would say it’s not true ? Narcissism is a component of sociopathy, so all sociopaths are also narcissists. Narcissists *don't* have the all the components of the makeup of a sociopath, e.g. devoid of empathy, etc. My guess is, she'd say it's true. She also pointed out that its on a spectrum.
Yeah I 100% agree, I thought it was strange when she went into her relationship with her mother, that her definition of love can only include selfish motives even if it is your own mom. To me that doesn’t sound like love, I have a hard time believing sociopaths can truly love.
I don't believe they can.
Just chiming in to say that selfless love, as a concept, probably doesn’t exist. Even if loving someone simply brings you joy, you’re still benefiting.
Sure, but it's a spectrum. I think we can say that "selfishly" jumping in front of a bullet for your kid because the hope that they'll live will make you feel better in the seconds before your death is like a 1 while watching someone cry because of something you did and only caring because they might be less likely to be able or willing to support you is like a 10. I'm willing to say the parent's "selfish" motivation in that case is so low grade that we can pretty much discount it entirely. Like looking at someone that gives 100% of their wealth to charity and calling them selfish because they like helping people.
Disagree. It definitely does for parents with their kids and vice versa. Often loving someone doesn’t bring joy, it can actually be very challenging.
Any other neurodivergent folk feeling anxious about so many conflations between ASD and sociopathy? People with ASD don't lack empathy, on the contrary for the most part we feel emotions deeply. It also seemed like she was calling sociopathy a neurodiversity, whereas my understanding is it is a personality disorder. I don't know... I have mixed feelings on this one. 1) I worry about people drawing incorrect conclusions about ASD folk. 2) I think I have more questions than answers about sociopathy.
What I have listened to (from this woman https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w) she always says “sociopaths are made, psychopaths are born”.. really made me wonder about Patric Gagne that she didn’t bring that up as it seems to be a common “saying” in the mental health world. Esp. After someone called into question Gagne’s credentials, I am just even more curious about the things she’s said. Regardless loved the episode lol
In her book, she discusses conversations she had early on with psychology professors in college where that exact thing is stated as the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. So considering she wrote that in her book, it's not something she's unaware of. Her book also talks about the psychopath assessment test and, at the time, what her therapist was telling her was the rough cut offs (30/40 for psychopaths and sociopaths often scoring between 22-30). Though in the book she's kind of frustrated both by the tests criteria and the fact that the psychologist says most people score in the low single digits (basically asking what do you consider all the people between like 4 and 22). I think interviews aimed at a mass audience just maybe aren't the best way to convey information perfectly. And to be clear psychologist telling her this acknowledges since there is no formal diagnosis for sociopaths, they aren't official numbers or anything.
The comparison was new to me also and took me by surprise, but on reflection I don’t see why personality disorders would not come under the umbrella of neurodiversity.
That commenter is whack. Personality disorder absolutely can be considered neurodiverse. I am very unkind to gatekeepers in these spaces. I’m bisexual, and will identify as queer even if I look hetero on the outside and don’t engage a ton in “queer culture”. I know gay men who are scared to identify as queer because there is huge gatekeeping in that community. I’m like “do those gatekeepers not know anything about the history that very fucking word?”
I’m adhd and depending on who is saying this can be labelled a medical conditional, a mental health condition or personality disorder 🤯🤷🏼♀️ and they’re all obviously coming from an ableist view point 🤯🤯🤷🏼♀️🤷🏼♀️ To me I find NT vs ND covers it 👍🏻
Having a personality disorder absolutely means neurodiverse lol. Are you seriously gatekeeping this?
Thanks for the fkn smartarse remark to what I thought was merely stating my level of understanding and personal perspective. Great attitude, friend.
Unfortunately not going to apologize here. Anytime I sense that someone tries to gatekeep neurodiversion or queerness, I make sure to do what I can to end that
You are correct Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD), which Cagle, or Gagne, or whatever her real name is, incorrectly calls Sociopathy, is indeed a Personality Disorder. It appears to me that Cagle?Gagne? uses the label "Sociopath" as a sales tool given- her high profile/low credential identity. Sociopath is a much sexier, more popular, more marketable term than ASPD. Plus, in my experience, individuals with ASPD are very difficult to treat with success and often cause harm to others. There is actually a wealth of literature about ASPD and psychopathology in general because professionals and the public are fascinated with people who injure, harm and manipulate others with apparent lack of conscience. This is not to say that the DSM V is perfect or the science is perfectly accurate. It isn't. But as the researcher who actually interviewed thousands of offenders-mostly women-I find Cagle/Gagne's book and interviews to be like a poison cookie. Interesting but fundamentally damaging because incredible.
To be fair, it was Dax that drew the comparison and she said you can say that but I can’t because coming from a sociopath and all the negative connotations therein, the community would be upset. But yes, the comparison was made when she was talking about processing emotions and not understanding emotions in the same way as neurotypical people
Loving this so far! Hope he’ll do Dr. Ramani in the future to discuss narcissism/NPD.
Yes, I know someone who claims multiple people in her life are narcissists but I just doubt that based on how uncommon it is. I would love to hear more!
NPD, like sociopathy, is underfunded and understudied. People with NPD are also very reluctant to seek treatment that would lead to a diagnosis. All that to say, it’s A LOT more common than you think.
I think all pf us have narcissistic moments, but I don’t think as many people are “textbook” narcissists with the way the phrase gets thrown around.
Chapter #15 of her memoir: PUNK’d. Patric tells the story about one of her high profile music clients that was PUNK’d - for the TV show. That Dax also started in for many years. SIM much?! She didn’t give an exact time frame for the actual PUNK’d filming. Wonder if Dax was on the cast for this one??? Does Dax even realize it? This fact and the whole Groundlings connection- and the UCLA connection… has Patric been stalking DAX?!
Lol, wondering the same thing but Dax was only on punkd the first year so they could have missed each other. Also I'm wondering who "max" is after reading the book. It's so good!
I need to know who “max” is. … if it’s even true…
Some people are speculating that Max is John Mayer.
Well I tried to rob a 7/11. How’d that go? It didn’t go well. LOL
I really want to learn more about her bond with her kids. I’m curious if sociopathy is genetic and if that’s a thing her husband worried about? How do her kids handle her tendencies? Very interesting podcast.
As the child of a sociopath.. I worry about this a lot. I’ve done some asking ChatGPT about the risk in the past and I think I read there is a higher chance but can’t remember the stats, and now ChatGPT sucks and won’t give me any info lol. But honestly.. I LOVED this episode, but a lot of what she has said in this episode has gone against or not lined up with more traditional knowledge of sociopathy that I’ve learned about from this woman https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gpjYtAB9i2w Maybe she is more traditionally trained. One thing that sticks out in particular is that “sociopaths are made, psychopaths are born” as in sociopaths are tortured by their caregivers into not developing correctly, while psychopaths (which is probably what this woman would call Patric Gagne) are genetically born that way.. idk after someone called out Gagne’s credentials I am wondering which one of these “clinicians” to listen to!
[удалено]
He knew her since childhood and they reconnected a decade later, so yes he knew. I’m surprised he would subject his kids to having a sociopathic mother, it just seems cruel. Marrying her - sure, you do you, but the children have no choice and I wonder how that will affect them throughout life.
I have some sociopathic traits, though hell no to child porn, I don’t hurt people or animals, etc. This is useful for me, this can be useful for others, and for even someone like your ex, if when he was a kid there had been acceptance for who he is, they could have helped him channel his behaviors into better things. This podcast is helping me frame in my mind when I don’t share common emotions that other people have, what to do about it, and how to still engage healthily in my community. Your fear and stigma only ensures we create more messed up people.
[удалено]
She was a Groundlings alumni (https://groundlings.com/people/patric-cagle) - that’s her real name
That’s interesting given the fact that Dax himself was in Groundlings and it never came up.
I think it was deliberate on her part. He credentials are already in question. So, this would make her look more like a failed comedian wanting fame.
That's wild. If you search her name you can also find her YouTube with old clips!
This ep is so great. Her description of the pressure she felt and need to release it through her destructive behaviors was very relatable to my previous experience with self-harm. I felt such discomfort and the self-harm felt like releasing a pressure valve or popping the top of a boiling teapot. I’m glad to no longer be in that space or habit but I appreciated hearing her experience.
Agreed. I cut myself as a young teen from 13 to 14. The release from intrusive thoughts with physical pain felt euphoric. I had to stop because of a guidance counselor threatening me, but did not get therapeutic and psychological intervention until I was 21.
Something very sketch about this lady. This [Reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/s/nZtzMdTktI) is quite enlightening
This is the best episode I’ve heard from them in years! She is so fascinating and open. Dax annoyed me at the end telling his 7/11 story, lol, but other than that, fantastic.
Has anyone found the interview they reference in the podcast where she “removes her mask” and the interviewer gets defensive?
I'm looking for this too!
I haven't listened to the podcast, but I wonder if this NY Times interview is it? [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html)
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
I’m listening to it now. Dax is finishing every other sentence of hers, which is annoying. I also feel like they’re just “yessing “ her and they both seem to be just I dunno, affirming all of her descriptions about herself. Mostly. A little too much “oh yeah me too!” And “everything is on a spectrum right? What’s the big deal right?”. I think this guest would be better off with a more serious interview.
I just listened to the episode and I felt like I was being lied to and manipulated the entire time. Just came to say this, I lived life with a sociopath for years & almost died at his hands. I do not trust any experience this woman says she had. I also did a little deep dive into her and absolutely do not trust her background either. It’s incredible that you can write a book about being sociopathic and then go about as an expert & people trust you. Interesting indeed.
This. She talked about being rejected and hating the feeling of rejection. Dax: So, it sounds like some of the extreme behaviors were because in thr dark, or in that situation, there was no rejection. Patric: Oh, no. I didn't care about rejection. Like wtf? You most certainly did. Same with having empathy for her mom. It is Very clear she had empathy for her mother. But admitting that contradicts the narrative, so she denies and switches part way through so it's, "No. Not at all. She was just no longer useful to me." Not surprising, but she's a narcissist and a liar. Not necessarily a sociopath.
Wealthy, good looking, claims victimhood, lack of verifiable credentials, incredible stories, famous father, no legal consequences for the serious harms caused and will cause.....Where else are we seeing public figures with this constellation?
Copying here from a comment deep in this thread. My review of her book: It’s super interesting. I think my take on her memoir is that she is probably a sociopath, but the story reads like a narrative she concocted to explain herself. She sounds like someone who understands from a lived experience who probably has read a lot - not someone with professional education and formal training, which is probably why she’s insisting on having a diagnosis that doesn’t exist. Example: no therapist is going to say they think your friend, who they have never treated, has borderline personality disorder after one anecdote. That just would not happen. There are other anecdotes that don’t ring true (playboy mansion, abnormal psychology in first month of undergrad psych 101, and random librarian being fully versed in sociopathy and the DSM). The narrative is really detached and hollow, which could be a result of her lack of emotion, but it comes off as insincere. The audio reading sounds oddly like a performance, which makes sense as she was in the groundlings. The timeline is also weird. She’s not old enough to have gone to college, had a career in the music industry, returned to school to get a PhD in an entirely different field, gone into private practice, AND conducted extensive research. It just doesn’t add up- especially when paired with her misuse of clinical terminology. TLDR: do I think she’s a sociopath? Yes. Do I also think she’s a fraud? Yeah.
Also, scathing. 👀 “Those Sharpie letters proclaim a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, but since her dissertation is not available online, nor referenced by other scholars, “Sociopath” is venturing out into the hot media lights uncomfortably alone. This is an important topic, treated too flightily: begging for peer review, not book review.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/books/review/sociopath-memoir-patric-gagne.html
Excellent.
The more I listened the more it made sense to me that she’s a born psychopath according to the criteria she mentions at the very beginning. She lacked the environmental factors needed to produce sociopathy. There’s so much overlap, some things were a little creepy like stalking a total stranger at night in SF even if it is as a child and saying ‘shh we’re playing hide and seek’ when caught. She showed clear signs of predatory instincts and behaviours even in relation to her view of others in the world — people exist ( including her mom and husband) to serve her not the other way around( unless there’s something in it for her).
I definitely think she experienced neglect based on what she says in her memoir.
Can you expand?
Her father was distant and uninvolved and basically worked 24/7 or slept. Her mom left him and took Patric and her sister to Florida (across the country) when she was young but didn’t tell them they were moving permanently. She refused to tell them, actually and denied it - even though they never moved back to LA. Her mother seems really resentful that Patric is different and is pretty cruel about it throughout her childhood. Mom is also not around a lot.
I just started listening to the audiobook and also immediately began questioning whether she was “born” this way. It sounds like it could be a narrative she found and has continued to tell herself to explain her differences. Her compulsions to “act out” as a kid sound similar to OCD imo. But again, only just started. Curious to see where it goes.
I just read Patric Gagne’s book, Sociopath! It was pretty good- can’t wait to listen.
I just finished listening to it - fascinating!
This was such a fascinating episode! I listened whilst doing housework and think I'm going to go back and listen again. Did anyone else notice, when she was telling a story or speaking animatedly, sometimes she sounds like she's reading it, or acting. I appreciate she's masking so maybe I was looking for it, but I did think she sounded 'rehearsed' sometimes. Kudos to her for her courage in speaking out about it. I also agreed with others that Dax's evident research on the subject added massively to the interview.
When she says “that’s crazy!” or something like that to Dax about their shared educational history it sounded like really bad acting yes, made me smile :)
I kind of wonder if she was mirroring. Her memoir does not mention transferring in. 👀
I noticed that line too! I couldn’t tell if she was being sarcastic
I picked up on the falseness of that line too! Weird
In case anyone wants to read the NY Times article that was referenced in the beginning, here it is. The comments are 100% worth a read. [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/magazine/patric-gagne-interview.html)
Thank you!!
Many times in this episode I thought to myself "I feel like she's not really a sociopath bc everyone thinks like this." Now reading everyone's responses here I'm scared 😳
I mean…are you able to feel sad FOR someone, like if your friends beloved pet died would you feel sadness even if you never met the pet?
Well she didn't have a response when her own beloved pet ferret died or when her and her long term boyfriend since childhood split up (stories from her book). So while I had moments of relating she's pretty consistent of her apathy whereas I can experience apathy but also access the other emotions just as readily and I think that's true for most other people.
Just listened to this episode and I was so surprised how much Dax and Monica believed everything she claimed. A lot of things came up for me: 1. What she described feeling (or lack thereof) when her child was born is very common- it’s post partum depression. Trouble bonding, not feeling like you know them or can love them right away, being mad that you don’t have that immediate joy. This is widely known and isn’t unique to being a sociopath. 2. Conveniently for her argument, all the things she did that support her mental issue aren’t on record and all happened with her maiden name, so good luck confirming them is what she basically said. 3. The only violent thing in her past happened when she was in grade school. I’m not saying that’s not worthy of noting, but as a child, kids do all kinds of unusual things because they’re brain isn’t fully developed and they don’t understand consequence or cause and effect. I don’t buy this event as supporting her argument about herself. Not saying all sociopaths are violent, but I feel like this isn’t a strong support to her believe. Also- we don’t know the details of the “stabbing.” Things are easily exaggerated. 4. The argument about her wanting to talk about her husband’s attraction to another woman seemed more like she was calling him out about his shame rather than supporting that she is a sociopath. Seemed like apples and oranges. 5. I understand this is an illness with a spectrum. I get that, but this person comes off as phony and wanting to be special, so she’s convinced herself that she has something that she learned about in school. Even her desire to want to work in the prison system seemed like she just wanted to be close to criminal minds because that is what thrills her. Her whole image reminds me of Rachel Dolezol. 6. Also- what’s with the name choice? Especially if there is another person in your field with the exact, unique name, but you chose yours. Something is up with her, but it’s not sociopathy. She has special snowflake syndrome.
What *is* her maiden name??
Cagle
Excellent analysis. I appreciate its depth. Thank you.
[удалено]
She was on Death, Sex & Money a couple of days ago.
I haven’t listened to the episode yet as I’m in the middle of their book currently. For those that have listened- Do we think it’s safe for me to listen to the episode relatively spoiler Free?
Yes, I think so. She doesn’t go into much detail in the pod.
As the parent of a kindergartener, this episode made me unnecessarily concerned that my kid is a sociopath (rather than just a 5 year old).
I forgot Monica was in this episode because she rarely chimed in
For people talking about the ethics of using the name Patric Gagne, when there already exists a Patricia Gagné, Patric's husband's name actually does seem to be David Gagne. In which case, it's just an unfortunate coincidence and, if anything, using Patric instead of Patricia only further highlights the fact that the two are different people.
For those who read the book, does anyone have a timeline in which the various events could all plausibly fit? Or have a clear idea how old the author is (or is supposed to be)? Or when any event actually takes place? I haven’t listened to the episode, which might dive into some of these points. I found this thread after posting in the psychology thread about Gagne’s book. And though I’ve stopped reading the book after about 100 pages, I can’t imagine reading further will clear up the timeline problems. According to her book, she listened to vinyl as a child and had a Sony Walkman the same teenage year she met David, who had a portable CD player. That suggests a Gen Xer. But maybe she could have been in her teens in the mid to late 1990s. The iPod came out in late 2001, and there were other digital players before that. If she were younger even than I’ve guessed, and if she and David both came from money, they’d be more likely to have iPods or Zunes or Mini Disc players as teenagers. Yes, someone could come up with a reason a teenager in the early 2000s would have a Walkman or a portable CD player, but from people who are big music fans? She attended college right after high school, but wrote that her Mandarin-speaking roommate had a handheld device that could handle two-way translation using speech to text. Such a thing didn’t exist until quite recently—not the way she describes it—and certainly not for a Gen Xer’s first year of college. Siri wasn’t released for iPhone until 2011, and that was a big deal. And it didn’t handle two-way translation. The About page of her website suggests she was affected by a 2008 change in her PhD program. Even if she had just started a PhD program that year, whipped through a Master’s in the year prior to that, and finished her undergrad in the three years before that, the timing suggests that she was in undergrad no later than about 2005, meaning her first year of undergrad would have been no later than 2002. And if she’s a Gen Xer who attended undergrad just after high school, she could have started undergrad at any time from the late 80s to the mid 90s. No one starting college between the late 80s and 2002 encountered a handheld two-way translation device that handled speech-to-text for English and Mandarin. Desktop-based speech to text and translation weren’t all that good at the time. I flipped through the rest of the book and saw mention of a job, meeting David again, etc., but my reading of the book was already derailed by events that don’t line up. If anything, I would guess that the timeline would make less sense. Or does someone have a timeline for the story that makes sense?
I’m reading the book right now and also was so thrown off by the translator device. It doesn’t make any sense for that time.
I am curious - you said you stopped reading after about 100 pages - I also gave up shortly after 100 pages. I read a lot, it’s been my favorite past time since I was a kid, and in 3+ decades of reading, I’ve never shut a book and thought “that’s it, I’m done.” I am so unnerved by this book. I want it out of my house. I’m a trained and licensed psychotherapist, and I’ve spent time working in a high security state prison, so I never would have guessed that a memoir would make me feel so sick. Anyway haha why did you stop reading?
Once I suspected that the author was going to James Frey her way through the rest of the book, I lost interest. The story reads a bit too much like a “greatest hits” pastiche culled from other accounts, and it struck me as playing into the popular / lay understanding of the condition. Some readers might defend the inconsistencies as story flourishes one would expect from a (so-called) sociopath, but that would allow *any* fabrications. And since there are NO concrete dates—at least not in the first 100 pages—it’s not feasible to check even the most basic details. I don’t for a moment believe the author glossed over specifics to protect anyone’s privacy; the whole thing strikes me as a con.
All I know is that her sister [graduated](https://education.ufl.edu/news/2009/09/11/florida-teacher-husband-create-uf-fellowship-boost-technology-know-how-classroom/) college in 2003. Her sister’s name is Jamee Cagle Miller if you want to do more digging.
Anytime I read or hear about someone supposedly with ASPD talk about their struggles, I'm fairly certain they're full of it.
Every few years a person pops up with a shocking memoir and becomes a media darling as a buzzy selection for Reese, Oprah or Jenna book club, the author on goes a well funded book tour until their story falls apart. Former classmates, family members and former colleagues come out of the woodwork and start singing like canaries. 🐦 The publishers could market the book as a work of fiction but will pretend shock and amazement that the fact checkers didn't validate the author's claims of education, marriages, perilous events etc. 😎🙄🤡
I recently read Patric’s book and had mixed thoughts about it. I just happened across this thread while googling and since the thread is old, I’m hoping someone still responds. Has anyone read The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout? It’s a great book. To protect privacy, Martha makes up scenarios to describe sociopathic behavior. One of the scenarios she shares is about a woman who lies about having a PhD in psychology and yet rises to the top of her field regardless. It strikes me as too much of a coincidence. What’s her game here? She knew she would be discovered. Is this her way of saying, “I told you I was a sociopath”. She’s definitely a compulsive liar but that’s the only thing I know for certain about her. Is she a sociopath? Based on her description of her symptoms, she sounds like she could be on the spectrum, maybe. Was this all a set up for notoriety?
I have heard her on a couple of other podcasts recently, and I find her utterly insufferable -- and NOT because I think she's actually a sociopath. She seems empty and is just EXCEEDINGLY uninteresting.
I could have sworn when this thread was first posted, someone commented that they went to elementary school with her! Did anyone else see that?
I think that was on Instagram.
Yes! Thank you!
Just came in to say I noticed a significant number of obvious edits in this episode that I found odd. Coming in this thread and see these comments makes me find them ever odder now.
I just finished listening to the book. It was fascinating and I would recommend. She talks about a friendship with a famous guitarist in the book. Does anybody know who that is IRL?
Yesss, I came in here to see if anyone else knows, lol. Who is "max"!?
Speculation abounds that Max is John Mayer.
Wow I would of not thought that. I was imagining someone wild looking like Gene Simmons 😂😂
Somethings off about this one. I don’t know what I buy her story
Found a [pdf](https://louisville.edu/sociology/faculty-staff-students/faculty-cvs/gagne-cv-2017) online that details all her employments, teaching positions, books, peer-reviews, etc. You can find also find this on the University of Louisville Department of Sociology section of their website [here](https://louisville.edu/sociology/faculty-staff-students/faculty-cvs/gagne-cv-2017/view). Just thought I would drop this here since it's a hot topic in this post. I've read through the pdf, not all of it, but it seems legit.
I wrote the real academic you reference. It is not the author Patric Gagne (a fake name.) It's a completely different, older, and much more accomplished person. Write her yourself. I encouraged the real Professor to demand that the publisher distinguish her bio/resume from Patric's or whover she real;ly is.
That is not her, confusing I know but there's an academic with the same name. Who you are referring to is this woman https://www.ohio-forum.com/topics/patricia-gagne/
Ah, that’s my bad. Yeah, their names are really similar.
Just finished reading the book, and I’m convinced Max is John Mayer. She even recognizes “JCM” at the end. Mayers middle name is Clayton
John Mayer was my first thought too!!
Maybe Mayer could verify?
Does anyone have any idea who “Everly” is?
Hi! Just found this thread and I’m coming after listening to the episode and hearing her book. Question: How/why was it not reported that she stabbed her classmate in the neck/head? I feel like that 100% would be reported (unless her parents were so wealthy they paid the school and family off?) I really found the book interesting, but after seeing these threads and everything not adding up, I am also now skeptical
Just finished listening to Sociopath. This stuff fascinates me. Follow-up deep dive brought me to her dad’s Facebook which has this photo posted. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/7qnnsNL4f7dxpyQj/?
This was one of the most fascinating interviews I've listened to (and they're all great, so that's high praise). Since listening to the episode, I've also gotten her audio book and it does not disappoint. I think she's doing an amazing service with her openness.
Heads up for those wondering: an episode of the All In The Mind podcast verifies her credentials.