Is the Psycho Gaming the System? Could be....

J                
James Egan Holmes: The 'Butcher' of Aurora. Is he gaming the system?

The blogosphere buzz now is that the Aurora Mass Murderer (let's cut the crap here, and leave out all the "alleged killer" BS - he surrendered to the police decked out in his bloody kevlar and other gear) is gaming the justice system. This meme has arisen in the wake of the discovery that he sent a notebook bearing all his massacre plans to a therp that was treating him at the University of Colorado-Anshutz. Evidently, this therapist - Lynne Fenton- had been treating the guy for schizophrenia .

Left unresolved, especially after a judge has sealed further records disclosure from the university, is whether Holmes knew in advance how this would unfold. It is possible that he deliberately decided to seek therapy services from this senior person in the hope that it might later be exploited to make the basis for an "insanity" plea.  Leaving out all the other distractions, I simply believe Holmes - if this was indeed his plan - made the wrong choice of illness. He is definitely (ok, let's say instead with 90% probability) not schizophrenic - since his behaviors don't fit that cluster of traits as defined and explicated in the DSM-III and IV.  To recall for readers, The DSM-III, IV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a classification of personality disorders and identifies 'clusters' within which specific disorders can occur. These include:

(A) Schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid personality disorders ('odd, eccentric' cluster)

(B) Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and anti-social personality disorders ('dramatic, emotional, erratic')

(C) Submerged: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive aggressive personality disorders('anxious, fearful')

Each Cluster has discrete tendencies within itself:

(A) -> withdraw (no wants from others)

(B) -> exploit (want from others without seeing or responding to what others want from them)

(C) -> comply (want from others, but yields only to others' wants to avoid conflict)

As I showed in my several prior blogs, beginning with Deconstruction of a Psycho Holmes' profile and attributes (as we have assimilated them from sundry reports) fit in with the tendencies in the last (C) ensemble and hence fit the profile of a submerged personality, not a schizophrenic. Also, I have had the experience of observing paranoid schizophrenics at the Black Rock (Barbados) Mental Health Sanatorium in the 70s, and NONE of them demonstrated any capacity for mega-violence of the form James Eagan Holmes manifested via his aggressive pseudo-ego,  the Joker.

Now, let us bear in mind another critical aspect as this case slowly wends its way to trial (which I am now informed  may not be for two years):  A person cannot be tried for a crime unless he is competent to stand trial. To be competent, he must be oriented as to time and place, comprehend the charges against him, appreciate his legal peril, recall the events that caused him to be charged, and be able to communicate with and assist their attorneys to defend him.

It is not, at this time, evident that Holmes meets any of these criteria.  Indeed, according to the (UK) Telegraph, Holmes claims that he does not recall the incident. If that is true, he is incompetent to stand trial.

Why should he not recall it? As I explained in my 'Parsing of the Submergent Psycho- Part II  his incarceration "has torpedoed the 'Joker' (the aggressive pseudo-ago) who is thereby rendered impotent and inactive. What we are seeing is the first emergence of Holmes' authentic self and the expected SHOCK because frankly, HE doesn't know what the hell happened! After all, it was the pseudo ego 'Joker' that did the deed, then vacated or was vacated. Now, the authentic or previously submerged ego is left to wonder what the hell is going on."

So no wonder he has that vacant, million light years distant stare on his face. I also added (in the same blog):

"His self has been dissociated, and the guilty perp -ego is now gone, fled the coop as it were, to leave the authentic 'James Holmes' ego and self to bear the cost"

In other words, to spell it out, Holmes as his authentic (earlier submerged) self, truly can't recall the incident or what he did. He can't because a distinct, different ego (self) perpetrated it. This aggressive pseudo ego masterminded all the planning, as well as execution, while Holmes' submerged self was unavailable and 'out for the count'. His contact with therapist Lynne Fenton may actually have been a last ditch desperate effort to contact the mother-pseudo ego for some kind of relief. (With Fenton embodying the mother ego). We may never know.

The other real horror (apart from the lives shattered and lost at the theater) may be that the authentic self - who had no clue what was transpiring - will be executed for what his alter ego ("Joker")  did to those 70 people at an Aurora movie theater.

Parsing the 'Submergent' Psycho (Q&A): Part II

The malevolent punk, James Eagan Holmes, in court today

                   


We continue now with more questions, answers:

Q. I am still not clear on where all the rage had to come from to fuel the Joker persona. Can you give the psych background?

A. Okay, first from the time the child had to sacrifice his authentic persona, he had to expect something back in return. A quid pro quo for his self-sacrifice. This includes “positive mirroring”, e.g. the mother smiling back at him when he smiles at her, and some degree of “empathic attunement”, i.e. when he skins his knee or otherwise hurts himself, his mother responds in an empathic way (putting a bandaid on) and doesn’t ignore him.

But in the most wretched cases for genesis of the submerged personality, this quid pro quo is not met. The mother’s (or other dominant parent’s) expectations are such that virtually nothing the kid does merits compensation, so the kid ends up giving away his self essence for nothing. According to Michael Lindenmann (op. cit., p. 89):

“There is a three-part strategy for defending against loss of empathic attunement and positive mirroring (the child’s early requirements for unrestricted emergence of authentic – if grandiose- ego) . The three elements are: 1) reactive rage, 2) repression of grandiose strivings of the authentic ego, and 3) accommodation to external requirements. “

Lindenmann goes on to note these elements form the basis for an unconscious mode of transaction. He goes on to emphasize:

“ This mode of reaction, thoroughly reactive and defensive in character, may be assumed whenever there is a perceived threat, in fact or fantasy, to the strivings of the narcissistic ego or its demanded narcissistic supplies. With enough reinforcement over time this will become the habitual of relating for some individuals.”

Q. Can you put the last part in context for Holmes?

A. Again the 3 elements must be understood in the context of the unconscious mode of transaction, especially the first two: reactive rage and repression of grandiose strivings. These were evidently fed since Holmes’ childhood for whatever reason. However, as long as he received positive ‘strokes’ – whether for his academic performance or other achievements (e.g. making Phi Beta Kappa)  the reactive rage was held in abeyance since his grandiose strivings were being addressed and didn't have to endure repression. This was so even if the authentic ego that demanded the grandiose strivings was submerged.

The problems would have really begun when the grandiose strivings were denied or impeded, so the narcissistic component of ego was starved.(I.e. when Holmes Ph.D. aspirations came crashing down in tatters.) At this point the reactive rage would have been monstrously fueled, though its seeds were germinated years before, perhaps by some perceived slight from peers or professors. However, since the authentic ego was submerged, and the parent pseudo ego was the cause, a rage-reactive alternate pseudo ego ('Joker') had to be created wherein the reactive rage would reside, with potential use later ....say if external conditions warranted it in the pseudo-ego's mind.

Thereby all the cumulative frustrations of the authentic ego would be transferred to the pseudo ego or what Holmes called the Joker. It’s important to grasp that neither Holmes’ authentic ego or the parental pseudo-ego was capable of the reactive rage displayed in the Aurora massacre. This had to be carried out by the rebellious, pseudo ego. This was the one created (we know not exactly when) explicitly for the purpose of harvesting all past slights whether from parents, peers, or other authorities and integrating them, before energizing the reactive rage from that basis.  Then acting on that rage, by emulating the vicious, fictitious persona he'd chosen.


Q. So, is this the idea behind the orange hair and Joker type get up seen in the recent TV news pieces?

A. Exactly! Since there is no way Holmes’ in the guise of his (submerged) authentic ego could have carried out this vicious mass murder, he in effect had to physically confect an entirely distinct aggressive alter-persona. This persona had to be radically different from the Ph.D. student and even manifest a different “strange, guttural,  cackling” voice. (The latter was reported coming through Holmes’ answering machine when a local gun dealer phoned regarding Holmes’ application for membership in a Byers gun club. Holmes' application was rejected by the club simply on the basis of the insane phone voice, as reported in today's Denver Post.)

In this aggression-laced pseudo persona, it was possible for Holmes to carry out his foul deed, since in his submerged psyche it wasn’t him (James Eagan Holmes) committing the crime, but the evil  “Joker”. Note also the “Joker” was –is the sworn enemy of Batman (see the previous film with Heath Ledger in the name role as "the Joker", and note also the eerie resemblance of the character’s hair to Holmes'). Hence, one can surmise “Batman” represented all normative successful society which Holmes’grandiose ego core now despised since his own failure (at Ph.D. level) to be an academic success. The authentic ego realized, perhaps from 3-4 months ago,  the only future on offer would not satiate the grandiose, narcissist needs. A future of working in the despised, low-wage service class sector would then emerge as the realization of  the "perceived threat, in fact .....to the strivings of the narcissistic ego".

One can conjecture that the transference of reactive rage extended well beyond the abstract, target  “superhero” (the ultimate success) of Batman to all those humans who idolized that success, hence the choice of the theater audience. (Though in truth we may never know why he selected Theater 9, as opposed to say 8) These attendees by definition were all Batman- success ‘groupies’ and (in the warped mind of Holmes’ aggressive pseudo ego), were the chosen proxy as the alternative to eliminating the superhero himself;  the embodiment of public accolades, societal-cultural success, ego mastery and adoration by the non-submerged populace.

I surmise the "Joker" was also unconsciously selected (bear in mind according to Lindemann we are talking of "unconscious modes of transaction" ) which also conforms to the need for "accommodation to external requirements". For all we know, it was selected not only to be an embodiment of evil - to carry out what Holmes' planned - but also as a kind of unconscious mockery of his own (authentic-submerged) ego's failure to gain the Ph. D.

Q. You do realize that the FBI Behaviorists will likely have a different view?

A. Oh, for sure! And more power to them! I say the more analyses we have on this creepazoid the better, to perhaps profile likely suspects before it happens again. (Though hopefully, the analyses will eventually boil down to one  unifying theme or profile! ) Think of this logically: If the gun lobby and its hacks, puppets prevail - as we are almost certain they will (despite Mayor Bloomberg's courageous pleas) - and no limits are imposed on the purchase of assault rifles -guns or multi-capacity clips, then the only option is to pick out the plausible mass murdering perps before they carry out their fell deeds.
 
As to having a different view, I would not be surprised since as I noted in an earlier blog, e.g
 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/psychiatrists-have-finally-lost-it.html

psychology is still an "immature" science, by which I mean there are no firm quantitative models by which to make predictions -say like in physics - then most interpretations, results and empirical findings will remain subjective. On the positive side, this is also why almost anyone willing to devote himself to the research aspect, can make a valid contribution. Much like the amateur astronomers did before astronomy emerged as a mature, quantitative science in the late 1800s.

This is also why I have no qualms about putting in my 0.02  (if someone asks what gives me the "right" to offer an analysis of Holmes) despite psychology not being my speciality area. It doesn't have to be given it's still a "squishy", subjective science with no really formal quantitative basis - - apart from the occasional statistical models and formulae, and we're well aware of the defects in those! Thus, I maintain that just as in the other subjective science of economics, anyone willing to put in a decent research effort is entitled to have his input taken seriously. In the sense of immature, subjective sciences, all inputs are to a degree, relative. The professional psychologist, psychiatrist, may attract more gravitas within his peer-reviewer, publication  community, but this doesn't disallow inputs from outside, say of non-specialists. Further, I don't offer my conjectures as any firm "theory" about Holmes, only a feasible hypothesis based on my research! Hence, people are free to consider it or reject it as they wish.  I do this because I understand many people are desperate to have the 'why' addressed, and no one in the media seems to be doing that other than incidentally. Worse, most of the analyses thus far given appear to be overly generic.

Q. Gov. Hickenlooper of Colorado has said the shooter's aim was not just to kill innocent people but to try to kill or eliminate our joy at going to the movies, say for escape. Do you agree?

A. Yes, I do. Given that this forlorn creature (refer to my blog 'Deconstruction of a Psycho') was "developmentally stymied" and hence whose life was not "available for rich and authentic experience", his aggressive pseudo-ego would naturally want to extend this miserable condition to all other humans. So in the warped consciousness of the Joker pseudo-ego it would have been believed that killing so many at an innocent venue would extrapolate to people not wishing to put themselves in possible harm's way at such a venue.

Hence, the best whack in the face for this creature would be to go to as many movies as you want, especially midnight premieres!

Q. DO you worry about your blogs giving too much publicity to Holmes?

A. No. Because the rationale isn't to confer any "publicity" but to provide a psychological profile and features by which to recognize the next wacko before he or she acts! And yes, that means people must come forward, even if it means that they might be proven wrong!

Q. Can you explain the loopy, vacant stare of the guy as captured in the booking image (above - top of blog) and in court?

A. Of course! The Submerged Disorder model easily accounts for the look! Clearly, the capture of the guy and his enforced isolation (solitary at the Aurora Jail)  has torpedoed the 'Joker' (the aggressive pseudo-ago) who is thereby rendered impotent and inactive. What we are seeing is the first emergence of Holmes' authentic self and the expected SHOCK because frankly, HE doesn't know what the hell happened! After all, it was the pseudo ego 'Joker' that did the deed, then vacated or was vacated. Now, the authentic or previously submerged ego is left to wonder what the hell is going on.

Is he insane? Of course! His self has been dissociated, and the guilty perp -ego is now gone, fled the coop as it were, to leave the authentic 'James Holmes' ego and self to bear the cost. Authorities would be advised not to let this dude alone for a nanosecond, because he will kill himself at the first opportunity - once he fully recognizes his situation.

Q. Don't you feel bad at "medicalizing" his condition using these psych models? Why not just admit the guy is pure evil and leave it at that? Most Americans don't wish to see all this psych medicalizing mumbo-jumbo!

A. Tough shit. I do not process 'evil' other than as a word. 'Evil' is the realm of religious ideologues, and extremists who see the world and experience only in black-white terms, as if they themselves could never ever remotely do such a deed. But the shock experiments of Philip Zimbardo back in the 60s-70s show any of us is capable of expressing what is called "evil" by the hoi polloi. Also, any of us - if enough pressure is brought to bear - can crack given the critical catalyst. So, with this in mind, I opt to use psychological referents as opposed to 'evil', 'evil doers' and oh, ...no doubt 'Demons', and 'Satan' and ancillary hogwash and figments of the derelict, uneducated mind. If people want THOSE sort of explanations, let them go to the Vatican - the same bunch that allowed the rape of thousands of kids by hiding the perps. I am sure they have plenty of "evil" to spout off about!

Q. What do you think will happen to Holmes?

A. I think he will end up at the "Supermax" facility in Canon City, Colorado, along with Ted Kascinszki and assorted terrorists. This may be the best retribution for the guy, as opposed to gassing him. This way, once the pseudo ego dissolves, as it must in prison isolation-confinement, he will be left with nothing but the charred remains of his life's regrets, and the acrid realization of all the unmet potential he still could have achieved......for the rest of his days.

Parsing the 'Submergent' Psycho: Q&A (Part 1)

In this blog I will use a question and answer format to further parse and explicate why I believe James Eagen Holmes is a "submergent personality" psycho, i.e. afflicted with submergent personality disorder. I will use actual evidence or assertions made about him by those who claim to have known him well, or worked with him, as well as other records now disclosed - such as that he was actually on academic probation at the University of Colorado, Anshutz campus in Aurora. All of this will comprise a further effort to make sense of an ultimately nonsensical act. The source work for most of the answers will be the psychotherapy anthology 'Psychotherapy of the Submerged Personality' edited and contributed to by Alexander Wolf, and Irwin Kutash.

Q. Could you give a background picture of personality disorders and how this 'submerged personality' disorder was chosen for Holmes?

A. The DSM-III, IV (Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a classification of personality disorders and identifies 'clusters' within which specific disorders can occur. These include:

(A) Schizotypal, paranoid and schizoid personality disorders ('odd, eccentric' cluster)

(B) Borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and anti-social personality disorders ('dramatic, emotional, erratic')

(C) Submerged: Avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, passive aggressive personality disorders('anxious, fearful')

Each Cluster has discrete tendencies within itself:

(A) -> withdraw (no wants from others)

(B) -> exploit (want from others without seeing or responding to what others want from them)

(C) -> comply (want from others, but yields only to others' wants to avoid conflict)

The first task then, is to identify into which 'cluster' Holmes would fit, based on his documented behaviors.
We can immediately exclude Cluster A since Holmes DID have wants from others: namely recognition for sterling academic performance, as well as rewards commensurate with his attainments.

To the extent of our existing knowledge we possibly can eliminate Cluster B ('exploit') since we've no evidence thus far Holmes used any covert or overt ruses or gimmicks to attain his ends, his academic success for example.

This leaves cluster C as the most likely fit for him, and this means a decided preference to keep to himself (also being compliant with others to avoid conflict). This avoidant aspect is critical in a "submerged" in that he is terrified of possibly exposing either his authentic (submerged)  ego or his maternal pseudo-ego for extended periods. (The latter likely to be perceived as 'soft', compliant and even unmanly by peers) Indeed, Wolf and Kutash (op. cit.) in their first chapter ('Historical and Theoretical Perspective', p. 13) emphasize that:

"A central characteristic quality of submergence is the need to be alone. The submerged personality cannot really reveal himself to anyone. The persons he claims as 'friends' are people who themselves, like him, have no close personal bonds. These have to subordinate themselves to his solitary need and ask for nothing in return. They must be loyal servants more than friends, providing only a listening silence for a man who has no interest in intimacy. His friends are to make no comment or to respond actively to his behavior."

This type of submergent is called "avoidant" and is said to lack "object relatedness". (Kutash and Greenberg, 'Place in the Diagnostic Spectrum', p. 47)

Q. SO how does this avoidant type submergent begin? What conditions create him?

A. Kutash and Greenberg provide the answer as follows (ibid.):

"In infancy the child is provided with satisfaction of all the basic physical needs such as food and physical comfort, but due to either a lack of parenting ability or life circumstance, the child is unable to receive much positive emotional stimulation or gratification. This scenario may be the result of a parent who is depressed or schizoid, or it may be due to a long term illness in which the child needs to be hospitalized.  As the child enters the ego-emergence phase, independent strides are met with negative consequences such as punishment or anger.

This may be the result of having a parent who needs the child to remain a child in order to feel less threatened, or who needs the child to engage in activities that they themselves cannot fulfill."

The authors go on to note that as a result of this subjugation of innate personality to the parent's demands "ego development is thwarted". This is a result of a "complying pseudo ego" emerging which occurs as the individual's own authentic ego is submerged and is done to "stay out of harm's way". The submergent personality thereby exhibits little object relatedness since "they do not know how it feels to be gratified by another person".

Q. Isn't it possible the condition of Holmes is really Borderline Personality disorder?

A. Okay, first a cautionary note: We must acknowledge personality profiles may or may not be reliable. The problem always is that one or more personality 'disorders' can overlap - thereby obscuring the accuracy of a profile. It is quite possible that this could have occurred in the case of Holmes. In addition, it is dangerous to attribute violence -or propensity to violence, merely because one has a personality disorder. Not all personality disorders render a person prone to violence. Hence, after ascribing some personality disorder to a perp, one must inquire 'What was the trigger that converted a pathological mental disposition(that the subject may have lived with for years or decades)  into overt acting out and mayhem?"

BPD - or borderline personality disorder, is now generally believed to have its genesis in 'schizophrenogenic mothers.'(Cauwels, J.M.: 1992, 'Imbroglio: Rising to the Challenges of Borderline Personality Disorder' W.W. Norton & Company.). Often, this can arise from incest- or some other form of emotional or physical abuse.

Some markers and indicators (op. cit.) include:


i) Borderlines tend to have significant sexual difficulties  (p. 62)

ii) Borderlines crave attention.

iii) From 25% to 65% of borderlines have suffered separations from a parent, generally in preschool or adolescent years (p. 233)

iv) Families of BPDs tend to be isolated and self-contained. Thus borderlines have no external families by which to gauge the pathology of their own. (p. 235)

v) Borderline adolescent males tend to aggressively act out their impulses. These can include bouts of hyperactivity, stealing, truancy etc. (p. 144).

As far as we know, none of the above apply to Holmes. Further, all the evidence is that - as with most submergents - Holmes avoided conflicts whenever he could. He lacked the confidence or basic ego mastery to even challenge teasing, as one former schoolmate related on yesterday evening's news (ABC). He noted that even as Holmes was repeatedly teased the only response was a soft smile and maybe a cackle or laugh but no effort to muster a retort.  A borderline personality would have no such hesitation.

Kutash and Greenberg also observe (p. 38):

"The borderline is intensely emotional, unstable, and unpredictable in responses. The submerged personality is usually predictable.....especially with regard to ambivalence (see previous blog), and paranoidal and sadomasochistic reactions.

While ambivalence is also seen in the borderline, it is less focused or centered. This is due to their etiologies being different. That is, the borderline has a damaged, split ego, the submerged individual has a submerged ego with two controlling pseudo-egos. Medication and hospitalization are often indicated in the borderline, this is not true of the submerged patient."

Q. I have read in today's paper that the police say there were no Batman comics or evidence of Batman infatuation in the guy's apartment. So they are saying there is no real connection to the Joker. What say you?

A. I say, or ask, how much psychology have the cops studied? How much research have they done? As much as me? I doubt it. The fact remains that the import of the "Joker" persona is NOT one of any comic or Comicon affiliation, or superhero heritage or even assimilation. It is rather, the choice of a pseudo-ego or rebellious counter ego to the dominating parental-mother ego that sucked this guy's life and psychic energy away. For whatever reason, Holmes elected to pick the "Joker" as the tag for this pseudo-ego and made that identification when he opened fire in the theater.

In doing so, he was not announcing any comic book affiliations or even knowledge (other than in a transitory and utilitarian way) but rather a choice for his aggressive, acting out pseudo-ego, the rebellious front man that wasn't taking any more shit from any dominant authorities or from anyone, period.

This was, in effect, the manifestation of the psychic embolism  (created by the tension between the two pseudo egos) that erupted after years or decades of "compulsively accommodating to the needs of others" (p. 99, Wolf and Kutash) and the abiding "fear of not having the uniqueness of his authentic ego, even in its most naive grandiosity" to be valued. BUT ...the "Joker" and his actions would be valued if only negatively! I suspect the "Joker" persona had first been incepted when Holmes was faced with a lifetime working in the service industry - then  it was kept on the psychological back burner should that ominous future ever be confronted again.

I suspect in this regard the "Joker" was hatched, at least in a rudimentary form, after Holmes received the shock of his young life on learning that - even after graduating with honors from UC Riverside in Neuroscience- the best job on offer was burger flipping at Mickey Ds! What a putdown! What humiliation! Well, Holmes temporarily salvaged the situation (and postponed release of the Joker)  by finding an 'in' at the Univ. of Colorado, where he could pursue a Ph.D. and at least had the chance at a respectable future in neuroscience research. But it was not to be. While he skated through the baccalaureate work he met his match at the Ph.D. level.

Within a year he found himself on academic probation at the University of Colorado-Anchustz campus. He had "academic problems" according to campus spokewoman Jackie Brinkman. Maybe he failed all his first year tests, maye he bombed out in a preliminary research paper or a practice comp, or may he blew a seminar (which apparently he gave in May on RNA -related neurological markers).  It doesn't matter what the immediate or specific source of failure was, the end result is that his grandiose self-concept now faced the imminent prospect of burger flipping . No Ph.D, no postdocs, leaving Colorado in disgrace...Mickey D here we come....or wait!

Time to release the "Joker"! In other words, the failure triggered the release of the aggressive pseudo self since the capacity for true creative work was denied him by the need for submergence of his authentic self - where the energy, insight and true intelligence resided to succeed. He could muddle by with this self submerged at lower levels, but not at this Ph.D. level.

More to come tomorrow.