Still Life with Boo Boo

One of the more powerful tricks psychopaths exploit against individuals is what I call institutional triangulation. This consists of taking a legitimate government organ, like a state auditor’s office, and using devices like whistleblower protections, to pursue harassment or destruction of some target of their pathological rage. The psychopath doesn’t have to do the work, other than filing the complaint. If the accusation is well-constructed, even if not truthful, the agency will do the dirty work for the protagonist.

I myself have had this perpetrated against me numerous times — at least 7-8. I’ve honestly lost count. But the template is as follows.

1. The complaint is crafted in classic narcissistic fabulist fashion — some ratio of verifiably real information, coupled with a description of either the condition or the targeted person that is completely made up. The key element here is to exploit extant negative mental models that exist in the institutional investigator’s mind so they become passionate about pursuing the complaint vigorously.
2. The psychopath takes advantage of some property of their anonymity of complaint. In reality, the psychopath wants to include enough detail in the complaint so that you know who is attacking you, but preserves plausible deniability in the context of the complaint. This is handy because if you then disclose who you think is using the institution to persecute you, they can then use the legal system to sue you for money for ostensible destruction of their reputation.
3. The complaint will fall into “hot button” issues of the day, so as to reinforce the institutional investigator’s motivation to pursue the complaint. “Me Too” complaints are great examples of this. As an older white male, I can attest that universities are weaponized to attack specific demographics for valorous reward. The targets may change according to public opinion.
4. There will be a paucity of actual information written into the complaint, but at least one plausible example so that the institution, steeped in the hot button issues du jour, that if there are any screens for sorting complaints, the efforts will not be killed by any kind of pseudo-judicial process existing inside the institution. There is no “risible” bar in most complaints. Accusation is enough.
5. The process is indeed the punishment the psychopath seeks. While a strong psychopathic personality might want to see harsh punishment meted out from the agency — someone may be fired from their job, or actual criminal charges might be pressed by a zealous state attorney — that really is not the end goal. The end goal is to make the target’s life miserable, and constrain their behavior over a long period of time. Remember — there will be enough detail that the target will know who their persecutor actually is. That’s the point.
6. By making an incendiary, but unsubstantiable complaint, the process can and will draw out for years. Institutional investigators will often quickly see that a given complaint has “no legs” — but at the same time will operate under a “whataboutit” assumption that will not allow them to summarily dismiss the complaint because of fallout from above. A great example in own career was I was accused of sexual harassment by a woman who basically attended class only a handful (I think about 3 times) in a semester, whom I barely knew her name. The investigation took over six months, and I was resoundingly cleared. That investigator — an African-American woman, who was honestly depressed by having to investigate me — was released from her duties sometime shortly after my complaint had terminated in my favor.
7. The institutional process, which is, of course, the punishment, will cause relational disruption and isolation around the target, involving innocent bystanders, who then also stand to be accused of whatever the preferred “ism” is of the day. In the case of a classroom situation, this contaminates the student experience of others, who likely cannot comprehend the fabulist part of the complaint, and become confused and withdrawn.
8. The complaint will usually resolve with some trivial finding of wrongdoing, as to protect the institution from being sued for a pattern of harassment. In one of my cases, I was investigated for close to three years for listing my e-mail address on a functionally inactive website that had been inactive for a number of years, stating that photos were for sale. I was found guilty by the state ethics board of using university property for “financial gain” even though the website was inactive. My whistleblower case was so appalling that after the close of the entire cycle, the state auditor apologized to my lawyer and indicated they were reviewing generalized whistleblower procedure because of the procedural abuse.
9. Boards that can decide these types of complaints typically also attract representatives of ostensibly aggrieved groups. If the target is from supposedly a privileged group, then it is open season as long as the community board is constituted from minorities, both sexual/gender and racial.
10. There are never any performance audits for any institutions when it comes to persecution of preferred targets, like white males. As such, psychopaths know they can count on sympathetic audiences for whatever pathologically whimsical complaints they can generate. If 300 complaints yield 30 investigations, yet only result in one substantive result, that is good enough. Institutions have deep pockets, and their lawyers have to have something to do. Citizens, on the other hand, are stymied by lack of funds as well as their stress and mental health. Coaching from the institutions is rampant as well. If someone from a preferred group, regardless of veracity of the complaint, approaches the given institutional entity, they will then receive instruction from the professionals on making their complaint stick. “Micro-aggressions” are a key tool in all this. I found out during my sexual harassment complaint that one of the key things the protagonist is told to look for is if I sat in a chair, with pants on, of course, but spread my legs “wide” — whatever that meant — that might be considered a “power position” and sexual harassment. Fortunately for me, I always sat behind a desk. Another professor friend accidentally dropped his phone in his lap during a Zoom call that his wife was also attending. He was investigated for sexual harassment.
11. Most processes have some alternate process for punishment for malicious complaints. These, however, are never pursued, regardless of how much false information nor fabulist representation of situation, ostensibly because of the “chilling effect” they might have on future complaints. Likewise, if you are viewed as being from a group that is “powerful”, the service of institutional mechanisms is not available to you. A man complaining about abuse of his children, even when well-documented and investigated, has no recourse with Child Protective Services, barring a broken arm. Two standards of justice exist. Family Court in states without default 50/50 custody, where judges are elected as opposed to appointed, are some of the worst offenders. They allow a spouse with a personality disorder to wreak havoc on the opposing party, because of the ability to know enough intimate details to convince a court to proceed with an “abundance of caution” — as long as that caution services accepted mental models, such as men propagating the majority of spousal abuse. While it is true that when it comes to real domestic violence (~10% of cases), men run at about an 8:1 ratio, actual spousal abuse is far more of a 50/50 proposition. Yet any accusation will result in institutional activation if it is directed at the male in the relationship.

V-meme alignment is a key element in how psychopaths both manipulate and embed themselves in various institutional structures. Psychopaths are adept at using externally defined relationships, and negative stereotypes associated with them when they are useful. Elder white professors are powerful. Minority students are racially discriminated against. Young women are irresistible sexual prey. And so on. Fathers are abusers. Women are victims. The problem with all this, besides destroying trust, and the ability to assess trust, is that it creates irretrievable and un-confrontable bias in how the information is then filtered and applied. Truths in all human situations are often ambiguous, and not black-and-white. But if you embed enough personality-disordered people in these processes, then you already have an affinity for splitting and black-and-white thinking.

And when you embed financial incentives inside the institution, through over-staffing and continual creation of extra-judicial organs that are poorly trained to “root out” various societal and social ills, you are going to have to have SOMETHING for these people to do. And once you’ve marched the size of these institutions upwards, re-containing them is almost impossible. You build a Gestapo, you’re going to get a Gestapo. There will always be psychopaths on the outside looking to feed these people raw, imaginary meat, using them to execute their pogroms and vendettas. And no one in the institutional structure wants to take on the necessary downsizing.

And most people will retreat from connection with others. My experience is primarily, obviously, with universities. The end result is the easiest thing to do is NOT interact with students, and just make a Powerpoint presentation to be posted on the web. But learning, especially of difficult material, falls off a cliff with that kind of approach. And while a certain number of disordered students might be satisfied, most retreat.

Who wants to deal with any of it?

P.S. Of course, I have names that I could name. But one of the problems with naming names is that narcissistic psychopaths are sue-happy. I’m convinced that more is not written about this NOT because it doesn’t happen, but because no one wants to end up in court. The process is indeed the punishment. And that just costs more money and drags things out. Gotta remember — psychopaths will willfully lie about just about anything. That includes any details in an obscure blog post.