Speaker 1: The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the
Speaker 1: podcast author or individuals participating in the podcast, and do
Speaker 1: not represent the opinions of Red Table Talk productions, I
Speaker 1: Heart Media, or their employees. This podcast should not be
Speaker 1: used as a substitute for medical or mental health advice.
Speaker 1: Individuals are advised to seek independent medical advice, counseling, and
Speaker 1: or therapy from a health care professional with respect to
Speaker 1: any medical condition, mental health issue, or health inquiry, including
Speaker 1: matters discussed on this podcast. And part of what made
Speaker 1: it easy to believe Anna is that while one she
Speaker 1: was a friend who ostensibly wasn't asking anything of me um,
Speaker 1: you know, aside from friendships. So I think had she
Speaker 1: been a man, it might have been different. Welcome to
Speaker 1: Navigating Narcissism Episode one. I'm Dr Rominey, Drvass, and a
Speaker 1: lot of you know me as Dr Rominey. I'm a
Speaker 1: licensed clinical psychologist and I've been practicing for twenty years.
Speaker 1: And I'm also a survivor of narcissistic abuse, which is
Speaker 1: why my focus is helping survivors. I've helped thousands of
Speaker 1: people who have suffered through narcissistic abuse, and my life
Speaker 1: mission is to teach you how to recognize the red
Speaker 1: flags so you can spot a narcissist before they spot you.
Speaker 1: In this episode, we are going to hear the story
Speaker 1: of Rachel Deloche Williams and how she met con woman
Speaker 1: Anna Srikin better known as Anna Delvey. This story dives
Speaker 1: into manipulation and narcissism as it comes up in a friendship.
Speaker 1: When we are talking about toxic behavior. Gender can really
Speaker 1: throw people off. People often let down their guard thinking awesome, woman.
Speaker 1: It's usually men who are narcissistic. I don't need to worry,
Speaker 1: not so fast. There are plenty of narcissistic women, and
Speaker 1: there are even certain types of narcissism, like vulnerable narcissism,
Speaker 1: where we see it's sort of pretty much equal men
Speaker 1: and women. Red flags are red flags, It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: who the person is. So, Rachel, where I'd like to
Speaker 1: begin is tell me a little bit about you. Where
Speaker 1: you grew up, your family, and before you got to
Speaker 1: New York. Sure, I grew up in Knoxville, Tennessee, and
Speaker 1: the oldest of three kids. My sisters two years younger.
Speaker 1: My brother is six years younger than me. My parents
Speaker 1: have been married since before I was born. They're both
Speaker 1: clinical psychologists. They met in graduate school, and I grew
Speaker 1: up really close with my family in a pretty like
Speaker 1: small and tight knit community. I would say I had
Speaker 1: a pretty healthy and happy childhood. Let's use that as
Speaker 1: the jumping off place. You met Anna, and there was
Speaker 1: a natural trust there, and how natural it is to
Speaker 1: trust people. So talk to us about how easy it
Speaker 1: was to trust Anna in the beginning. What drew you
Speaker 1: in and how your relationship grew with her? That's a
Speaker 1: good question. And part of that sort of willful trust
Speaker 1: came from having been raised to really ask why not
Speaker 1: just what? So looking at people around me as a kid,
Speaker 1: you know, when somebody would be sort of bullied or
Speaker 1: somebody might act in a way I didn't understand that.
Speaker 1: I think my parents really went probably above and beyond
Speaker 1: to try and help me empathize and to try and say, well, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, here are reasons why, and like, instead of
Speaker 1: poking fun, why don't you try to be a help
Speaker 1: to them. I think that carried over into my friendship
Speaker 1: with Anna, which is not to say that the friendship
Speaker 1: started from a place of pity. You know, I was
Speaker 1: drawn in by the sort of the opposite, you know,
Speaker 1: where I was very conscientious and like concerned with how
Speaker 1: my actions affected people around me. I saw that she
Speaker 1: was very bold, and she said whatever she wanted, and
Speaker 1: she was very direct, and she was hard to predict.
Speaker 1: Having someone who was so much the opposite of the
Speaker 1: way that I was was part of sort of what
Speaker 1: drew me in because it was so different from the
Speaker 1: way that I moved through the world. So saying whatever
Speaker 1: she wants and rebranding it as being direct and being unpredictable,
Speaker 1: those are red flags, but alas opposites can be compelling,
Speaker 1: and many toxic relationships begin when an empathic person is
Speaker 1: drawn to audacious behavior that should really be a red flag.
Speaker 1: What made you trust her? I've until that point, chest
Speaker 1: had been sort of a default setting for me because
Speaker 1: I had never really had someone betraying my chest in
Speaker 1: a way that was so cataclysmic. I had had very
Speaker 1: healthy relationship models. I had had very healthy relationships. So
Speaker 1: it was counter to my intuition going into especially a friendship,
Speaker 1: to think that I needed to constantly be um cynical
Speaker 1: about whether or not what somebody was presenting to me
Speaker 1: was actually truthful. Cynical is so such a tricky word
Speaker 1: in a world full of narcissistic people being sort of
Speaker 1: tentative and making people earn our trust, it's actually really important.
Speaker 1: And when we frame waiting for trust to be earned
Speaker 1: as cynical, it actually takes something that's wise, and it
Speaker 1: makes it seem unhealthy. And I understand your default setting
Speaker 1: was trust. So how did she draw you in? I
Speaker 1: think she made everything seemed very easy. You know, at first,
Speaker 1: there were no stakes that were apparent to me. It
Speaker 1: wasn't as though she was asking me immediately to lay
Speaker 1: anything on the line aside from just have fun with me.
Speaker 1: Let's do these fun things that weren't so far outside
Speaker 1: of the realm of my normal day to day life.
Speaker 1: The places where I feel like I had to sort
Speaker 1: of rationalize her behavior with regard to trusting that that
Speaker 1: she was good or you know, giving her the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt had to do more with her behavior
Speaker 1: like entitlement or being rude to waiters, or sort of
Speaker 1: acting in a way that did and drive with my values.
Speaker 1: And every time that started to sort of add up,
Speaker 1: like you know, if it happened multiple times and I
Speaker 1: started to kind of question it, she seemed to always
Speaker 1: kind of connect that I was starting to pull back,
Speaker 1: and she would immediately say something to dispel you know,
Speaker 1: that sort of distance that might be growing between us.
Speaker 1: So entitlement and being rude to waiters. These are actually
Speaker 1: really huge warning signs, and they're great ones because they
Speaker 1: often show up early in a relationship. Toxic people will
Speaker 1: often test the waters to kind of see how much
Speaker 1: they can get away with, and then when they sense
Speaker 1: that you may be onto them no, they'll often play
Speaker 1: it off as a joke or try to soften it.
Speaker 1: Pay attention to their bad behavior, and don't fall for
Speaker 1: that post bad behavior manipulation. And so the combination of
Speaker 1: your natural tendency to trust, the history of the relationship,
Speaker 1: which felt like many of her friendships you'd had. Even
Speaker 1: though she was unaware with what she said, it almost
Speaker 1: seems like there was an awareness when she felt that
Speaker 1: you were noticing her behavior, and then she would sort
Speaker 1: of course correctly, And all of that contributed to you
Speaker 1: giving her the benefit of the doubt. Yes, and I
Speaker 1: think she was very good at figuring out what people
Speaker 1: like needed, like what made them tick, and she kind
Speaker 1: of would I feel like sometimes when she would push
Speaker 1: the boundary in that way, she was sort of learning
Speaker 1: where the edge was so that she could figure out
Speaker 1: what she needed to do to keep the closeness there
Speaker 1: as my guests. Yeah, that's interesting though, because you could
Speaker 1: say that she's unaware, right, but actually she's deeply aware
Speaker 1: because despite the kind of abrupt and and sometimes entitled
Speaker 1: throwaway comments, when she sensed that someone who was in
Speaker 1: her purview might be changing, almost shifting, she was so
Speaker 1: aware that she could quickly change back to keep you
Speaker 1: or anyone else where she needed them. She also had
Speaker 1: a manner about her that seems sort of cut through
Speaker 1: anything negative that she might actually be doing. So she
Speaker 1: was saying something rud or if she was doing something
Speaker 1: maybe questionable, she would smile or she would giggle. It
Speaker 1: would seem like a bit of mischievous fun. And it's
Speaker 1: only later when you look at the behavior, or when
Speaker 1: I looked at the behavior on paper, that it became
Speaker 1: so clear to me that so many of her actions
Speaker 1: were wrapped in this delivery. It relied on her charm,
Speaker 1: It relied on, you know, her powers of persuasion to
Speaker 1: be acceptable in the moment. Toxic people are masterful at
Speaker 1: turning their bad behavior into a sort of little joke,
Speaker 1: to be kind of rude with a glint in their eye, right,
Speaker 1: and narcissistic people care so deeply about what people think
Speaker 1: of them, so the entitlement, which is rude, has to
Speaker 1: get delivered in a more palatable way, like with a
Speaker 1: little giggle. If it's uncomfortable, If their behavior is uncomfortable,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter how cute they are when they do it.
Speaker 1: It's still a problem in a way. What you're describing
Speaker 1: a sort of a really natural evolution of a friendship.
Speaker 1: What I'm hearing, and I believe hearing this and knowing
Speaker 1: the story is what happened to you could really have
Speaker 1: happened to anyone who was in a friendship with her.
Speaker 1: I believe that's true, and I know a lot of
Speaker 1: people would like to tell themselves otherwise, if everybody were
Speaker 1: immune to this, nobody would ever sort of get wrapped
Speaker 1: into a relationship like this. And it doesn't necessarily happen
Speaker 1: in the way that you expect, and a lot of
Speaker 1: it's very subtle. Yeah, and it happens over time. But
Speaker 1: it does happen over time. It's not like in the
Speaker 1: first hour you meet the person, they're abrupt and they're
Speaker 1: rusque with a waiter or something like that, that there's
Speaker 1: a process. And she did the same story through so
Speaker 1: many different people that whatever I didn't hear from her,
Speaker 1: I heard from twenty other people in the same social circles.
Speaker 1: Even when I started to question what was happening, you know,
Speaker 1: after she would meet the sementum amount of money, which
Speaker 1: I'm sure we'll get to you. It was very hard
Speaker 1: to move forward because every time I thought I had
Speaker 1: a theory that might work or makes sense, somebody else
Speaker 1: would dispel it, and I couldn't tell what was real
Speaker 1: and what was fall because everybody had misinformation. What a shame.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing as YELP for people. We
Speaker 1: can go online and find out if a restaurant has
Speaker 1: good French fries, but we can't always figure out what
Speaker 1: other people's experience has been with someone. Let me tell you,
Speaker 1: if we had something like YELP for toxic people, we
Speaker 1: would be saving people so much time and heartache. You
Speaker 1: had said, how had Anna been a man, your relationship
Speaker 1: with her would have been different. How so being a
Speaker 1: young woman and having grown up like a young woman,
Speaker 1: you know, we are taught to be wary of men.
Speaker 1: Who swoop in and give lavish gifts or invite you
Speaker 1: on trips or even just say hello, Like I'm always questioning,
Speaker 1: like what is your motive here? Are you? Are you know?
Speaker 1: Are you hitting on me? Are you you know, checking
Speaker 1: me out? Like you just you have a different way
Speaker 1: of sort of interpreting behavior based on an agenda, And
Speaker 1: with friendship, it never to me to use that same
Speaker 1: sort of standard for judging behavior based on where someone's
Speaker 1: coming from. Friendships with toxic people are so so tricky.
Speaker 1: We may be more sensitive to red flags where we're
Speaker 1: actually dating someone, but so many people we'll cut friendships,
Speaker 1: new friendships more slack, and that can be a real
Speaker 1: problem when you're dealing with a toxic person. It's something
Speaker 1: that you know, struck me. What you've talked about written
Speaker 1: about is also that there was this almost admiration of
Speaker 1: Anna making it in a man's world, right, Yeah. I
Speaker 1: admired that she was a young woman who had the
Speaker 1: ambition to go up in these traditionally male dominated spaces
Speaker 1: and vi first like a seat at the table. And
Speaker 1: I definitely did admire that. I didn't realize it was
Speaker 1: lacking sort of a moral ballast, but I admired her guts.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that that admiration just feeling like, Wow,
Speaker 1: she's really making it in this really difficult and in
Speaker 1: the high end of this, you know, finance and all
Speaker 1: this real estate and all this other stuff she was doing.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that might also have led you
Speaker 1: to cut her some slack. I think not so much
Speaker 1: that she was making it, but that she was trying. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: you know, I wanted her to succeed. She was my friend.
Speaker 1: I believed in her ambition. Even if I didn't believe
Speaker 1: in every one. I could see that she was working
Speaker 1: towards something, but I was rooting for her. My session
Speaker 1: with Rachel will continue after this break. So in this show,
Speaker 1: the show inventing Anna especially, a lot of people were
Speaker 1: sitting there saying Rachel got into this relationship frivolously. But
Speaker 1: that's not the case. So can we break down the
Speaker 1: traits and behaviors that were starting to come out in
Speaker 1: Anna that you observed and that gave you pause. The
Speaker 1: show definitely gets more wrong than it gets right. That
Speaker 1: person has my name, but there's little else. I would
Speaker 1: say that it was unbles the truth of my experience,
Speaker 1: and I didn't buy me close. She didn't buy me accessories.
Speaker 1: Why first pulled bian was the boldness, the ambitions, the fun.
Speaker 1: She was very entertaining. She made me laugh. She had
Speaker 1: a way of framing the world that made sense and
Speaker 1: this very twisted kind of logic, but was certainly not
Speaker 1: how I thought. And there's something about that sort of
Speaker 1: contrast that was transfixing. Our friendship was fairly fast. I
Speaker 1: knew her for a year. I saw her, you know,
Speaker 1: being entitled, being sort of insensitive, not not being mindful
Speaker 1: in big ways and small of the way that what
Speaker 1: she said or did affected other people. She would play too.
Speaker 1: I think this big sister impulse I have. I kept
Speaker 1: sort of chalking up certain social behavior to seeming like
Speaker 1: maybe she was like under socialized, maybe she didn't have
Speaker 1: somebody teach her that, Like that's just rude, And I
Speaker 1: kept wanting to sort of help her. Oh, the contrast,
Speaker 1: right between being bold and ambitious and fun and entertaining
Speaker 1: against entitlement and being insensitive and unaware of her impact
Speaker 1: on others. It's really confusing. So what do we do?
Speaker 1: We justify, and justification is how narcissistic people get away
Speaker 1: with so much bad behavior. We will tend to focus
Speaker 1: on their good stuff, We rationalize their bad stuff, and
Speaker 1: it gets so dangerous when we try to rescue or
Speaker 1: help them, because that is when a toxic person smells
Speaker 1: blood on the water and recognize that now they have
Speaker 1: a soft target. When do you think you started connecting
Speaker 1: the dots to seeing that this is something that hangs together,
Speaker 1: This is actually a personality style. Maybe this person is
Speaker 1: even narcissistic or something. When did the dots start forming
Speaker 1: a picture that that showed you something that was a
Speaker 1: bit more concerning and that you're willing to name it
Speaker 1: that way. It's funny. It took me a very painfully
Speaker 1: long time. I had every reason to understand in theory
Speaker 1: what a personality type looks like. Not only do I
Speaker 1: psychologist parents, but I also, like, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: studied English literature, and I know that's not psychology, but
Speaker 1: I've made a study of characters, like I have seen
Speaker 1: them play out in films and in books, and like,
Speaker 1: that's part of what drew me to working at Vanity
Speaker 1: Fair in the first place. Was a love for characters,
Speaker 1: was a love for storytelling, and I think that subconsciously
Speaker 1: knew that pulled me into the friendship because she is
Speaker 1: this larger than life kind of character. So that's tough
Speaker 1: life lesson. And it is so interesting though too, that
Speaker 1: you have the love for English literature. In some ways
Speaker 1: that might have damned you a little bit. Oh totally right.
Speaker 1: In literature, the character can be written so eloquently that
Speaker 1: a good writer can actually put the character in the
Speaker 1: round and in some ways can really make a very
Speaker 1: compassionate narrative around someone who's quite narcissistic. You know, let's
Speaker 1: face it, we know your story. She's a con artist.
Speaker 1: And what a con artist does is that they draw
Speaker 1: you into a behavior or into doing things on a
Speaker 1: false assumption, and in essence, they really indoctrinate you. And
Speaker 1: like you said, it's a process. It doesn't happen over
Speaker 1: one time. It happens over time. For example, her not
Speaker 1: paying you back but living as though she had the
Speaker 1: resources to do so, which created a false security that
Speaker 1: this will be fine. And what it sounds like she did,
Speaker 1: and something you've also talked about is she weaponized your
Speaker 1: trust and she weaponized your empathy. Does that ring true? Yeah? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And part of that I think has to do within
Speaker 1: this story, in particular the distraction of money and flashy things.
Speaker 1: I think people look at sort of a net outcome
Speaker 1: and think, why you're fine, therefore you're not a victim whatever.
Speaker 1: Narcissistic people are so good at shiny things. We make
Speaker 1: a lot of assumptions about them. They are successful, and
Speaker 1: they're well put together, and let's face it, superficiality and
Speaker 1: materialism just by themselves. Maybe that's a pink flag. But
Speaker 1: when we add in other patterns like entitlement and being
Speaker 1: abrupt with people, and then those flashy, shiny things show up,
Speaker 1: that's when we need to sit up and pay attention.
Speaker 1: You know, you said something so smart. I've heard you
Speaker 1: say this that someone like Anna, someone who is a
Speaker 1: con person, they sort of get you to use your
Speaker 1: own arm against yourself. Can you talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about that, because basically it's sort of the way they
Speaker 1: play the game is that ultimately you're acting in your
Speaker 1: own con is how you had framed it. I think
Speaker 1: that is what connartists and just sort of manipulative people
Speaker 1: do best, is they tell stories and they they ask
Speaker 1: you to place your test in them. You know, how
Speaker 1: much confidence do you have in me? And they sort
Speaker 1: of they almost make it like a dare you know?
Speaker 1: They make it like here you say this and this
Speaker 1: or why wouldn't you do this? Because x y Z
Speaker 1: a sort of shift your perspective of reality in a
Speaker 1: way that makes decisions that you wouldn't normally make feel
Speaker 1: like the only decision to make. They just have a
Speaker 1: way of sort of working working a perspective on something
Speaker 1: that makes it makes you not complicit. I don't think
Speaker 1: it makes you guilty. You play a more active role
Speaker 1: in the kind of orchestration of whatever turns out to
Speaker 1: be built on a false premise. But it's built on
Speaker 1: a false premise. That's the key. And this sort of
Speaker 1: leads into this next issue, because this one I feel
Speaker 1: very strongly about too. This story is a lot about
Speaker 1: we can talk about blaming the victim, and we can
Speaker 1: talk about a pathologizing the victim. That's how I see it.
Speaker 1: Too many people have looked at the story and have
Speaker 1: portrayed you as the person who took advantage of a situation.
Speaker 1: But when we bring this down to brass tacks, it
Speaker 1: was her behavior that was illegal, unethical, and manipulative. And
Speaker 1: yet the pathologization of the person who survived the story
Speaker 1: is something that was happening all the time. What was
Speaker 1: your experience of that. I mean that that is always hard.
Speaker 1: That will never not be hard because it is so twisted,
Speaker 1: and I think there are a lot of hard things
Speaker 1: to process in the world, but being misunderstood is I
Speaker 1: think a really tough thing to swallow. When people condemn
Speaker 1: the victim, they're saying you had it coming. It's also
Speaker 1: ironic that like I was the one in debt, like
Speaker 1: Amex protected me two years later, that the Inventing Anna
Speaker 1: showmakers rearranged a timeline to say that I got protected
Speaker 1: before the trial, which isn't true, and even if it was,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, doesn't mean that the crime didn't happen.
Speaker 1: Point being like, I think it's very like twisted. I'd
Speaker 1: say that a lot of sort of the people around
Speaker 1: Anna in real life who are still standing by her
Speaker 1: side condemned me from being an opportunist when I was
Speaker 1: the only one who was stuck holding you know, six.
Speaker 1: So it's too convenient and it doesn't really make any
Speaker 1: I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. There's this
Speaker 1: sort of double abuse that a person experiences when they've
Speaker 1: been harmed by a con woman and then they see
Speaker 1: that people are actually standing by the con woman and
Speaker 1: painting the victim, the person who was harmed by that person,
Speaker 1: as the problem. And this is where we see the
Speaker 1: power of the enabler when it comes to these kinds
Speaker 1: of toxic relationships. I mean, listen, the manipulation, the gas lighting,
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. That's bad enough, but then
Speaker 1: to watch people prop the manipulator up that can be
Speaker 1: just as difficult for so many survivors of these situations.
Speaker 1: We will be right back with my conversation with Rachel
Speaker 1: where she breaks down the infamous trip to Morocco. So,
Speaker 1: when Anna needed to leave the United States to reset
Speaker 1: her visa waiver in two seventeen, she had these suggestions
Speaker 1: to take a trip to somewhere warm, and it evolved
Speaker 1: from something that was close by and affordable that I
Speaker 1: assumed I would obviously pay my share for into Hey,
Speaker 1: I've booked a private villa at the world's most luxurious
Speaker 1: hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco. Who should be invite? So it's snowballed.
Speaker 1: It was presented as an all expenses paid vacation to
Speaker 1: sunny Amrakes. It's funny looking back, It's like, well, how
Speaker 1: could you have gotten that and not known. I had
Speaker 1: no idea that a trip could cost sixty dollars in
Speaker 1: the span of a week for starters. Second of all,
Speaker 1: I had no idea it would cost that much. And
Speaker 1: there's so many like subtleties and nuances in real life.
Speaker 1: Thicket completely glossed over when you look at something backwards.
Speaker 1: And I framed it as a business expense because she
Speaker 1: was working towards the creation of this foundation. But she
Speaker 1: framed this as a research trip. And when it's your friend,
Speaker 1: I kind of was trying to be supportive. I understood
Speaker 1: that maybe there would be some degree of research. She
Speaker 1: wanted to factor in some sort of international cuisine and
Speaker 1: hospitality and food and beverage components to this foundation. So
Speaker 1: it became this much bigger ordeal than I had initially expected.
Speaker 1: The hotel we stayed out in Marrakesh was called law Mommunia.
Speaker 1: It's the site of a former palace. It's a walled
Speaker 1: garden with alling villas and essential building that has four
Speaker 1: restaurants and it it was beautiful. I kind of always
Speaker 1: cringe it describing. Yes, it was razzle, dazzle and beautiful,
Speaker 1: and it just I think there are so many distracting
Speaker 1: elements when it comes to this story, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them have to do with razzle, dazzle and money.
Speaker 1: And it's not to say that that's not important. I
Speaker 1: think that's the reason that people are paying attention to
Speaker 1: the story, for better or for worse, because this kind
Speaker 1: of a thing happens every day, but it's just not
Speaker 1: as glamorous as this one looks from the outside looking in.
Speaker 1: But I think focusing too much on the material grandeur
Speaker 1: of it all detracts from the fact of, you know,
Speaker 1: very self serving, machiavellian behavior at the expense of everybody
Speaker 1: around Anna, and and sort of real betrayals of confidence.
Speaker 1: You know, some of this feels like love bombing. When
Speaker 1: we think about love bombing, we think about you know,
Speaker 1: romantic relationships usually, right, But the bells and the whistles
Speaker 1: and the razzle dazzle, they're distracting, or at least the
Speaker 1: narcissistic person hopes they're distracting. It doesn't matter what kind
Speaker 1: of relationship it is. I just think the misbehavior gets
Speaker 1: really overshadowed by the glamour of it all. I remember, though,
Speaker 1: it sort of started to slip into almost like a
Speaker 1: business bossing nous kind of attitude as we geared towards
Speaker 1: the trip. Obviously she was still a friend to me,
Speaker 1: but it felt a little bit more like she kept
Speaker 1: asking me to do favors and kind of like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if I can't have you as a friend, I'm going
Speaker 1: to start bossing you around kind of way because you're
Speaker 1: going on this trip, you know, Rachel, I'm really glad
Speaker 1: that you use this word machiavellian because it's such an
Speaker 1: important and it's also a confusing red flag. A machiavelian
Speaker 1: person is a very manipulative person who has a goal,
Speaker 1: right and a goal they have to reach, and they
Speaker 1: will do anything they need to do, including throwing other
Speaker 1: people under the bus, to get to that goal. Now,
Speaker 1: in this case, it was about more than just making
Speaker 1: this trip to Morocco happen. The endgame was that this
Speaker 1: was the kind of life that she felt entitled to.
Speaker 1: And it's actually kind of chilling for any of us
Speaker 1: to consider, is that a person can view us as
Speaker 1: nothing more than a tool to get what they need.
Speaker 1: And I at the time didn't see this. I just thought, yeah, like, obviously,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna invite me on this like luxurious trip.
Speaker 1: I'm going to do everything I can to help. As
Speaker 1: as to what I did professionally, I booked travel and
Speaker 1: manage logistics. So it felt much easier for me to
Speaker 1: do than it did for someone like Anna, who was
Speaker 1: often kind of disorganized and aloof at least distensibly. So
Speaker 1: is the Davis supposed to leave for Mary Cash. The
Speaker 1: trainer and the videographer both both texting me like what
Speaker 1: time has our flight? Like what is going on? Because
Speaker 1: Anna's confirmed everybody, but she has not sent out any
Speaker 1: ticket information. So I'm put in this position of being
Speaker 1: like the Anna whisperer and having to liaise. And I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, I don't know what time I'm going
Speaker 1: to be done with meetings here, like just take this card.
Speaker 1: So she's like book the tickets. She's like, I I
Speaker 1: can't do it. Can you help? So I go on Kayak,
Speaker 1: I book the cheapest tickets I possibly can, and it
Speaker 1: seems like her cards go through. I just remember getting
Speaker 1: a text from her like the bank just called me.
Speaker 1: It was you know, I can't get ahold of anybody,
Speaker 1: like the transaction was blocked. I was like, well, I'll
Speaker 1: just put it on mine, and she was like, if
Speaker 1: that's okay, I can wire you next week. So it
Speaker 1: started with the flights, and then it became sort of
Speaker 1: in for a penny, in for a pound. Once she
Speaker 1: owed me that amount of money. Anna accidentally checked her
Speaker 1: wallet at the airport, which I know screams red flag today.
Speaker 1: At the time, it was not beyond the fabric of
Speaker 1: her character, which was always kind of erratic, always kind
Speaker 1: of doing stupid things like forgetting her credit cards. I
Speaker 1: could rationalize it. I understand that is a red flag,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm quick to point it out. But
Speaker 1: here we are. And then it became meals added to
Speaker 1: the tab So the distractability, the being disorganized, the chaos,
Speaker 1: you know, those are also red flags too. And if
Speaker 1: you are any kind of a rescuer and you also
Speaker 1: happened to be an organized person, it can really be
Speaker 1: a set up for someone to step in and try
Speaker 1: to feel useful in one of these relationships. It started
Speaker 1: to be this little bit by bit trickle like death
Speaker 1: by paper kuts, tabulating of debt. But then the hotel
Speaker 1: itself escalated in a very different way that was not
Speaker 1: alone I consented to. Over the course of the week,
Speaker 1: I'd say halfway in, I noticed Anna was being pulled
Speaker 1: aside by managers at the hotel who wanted to speak
Speaker 1: with her. I didn't give it much thought because as
Speaker 1: far as I had had seen her, as far as
Speaker 1: I knew, everything was settled with the hotel in advance.
Speaker 1: She afforded me a booking confirmation that had a credit
Speaker 1: card last for digits on file except my last full
Speaker 1: day in Marrakesh. I was like, Annah, these people are here,
Speaker 1: you need to go talk to them. There's something going on.
Speaker 1: She goes out to talk to them. I like go
Speaker 1: back to the room, thinking she's settling it. And when
Speaker 1: I come back out into the living room, Anna is
Speaker 1: sitting there. Her phone is just flat on the coffee table.
Speaker 1: These two men are standing there. They're not the again
Speaker 1: that the Inventing Anna show has them with like guns,
Speaker 1: being violent and like, that's not how this was. But
Speaker 1: they were stern. They were not leaving. But I think
Speaker 1: what was the most alarming was certainly not the men.
Speaker 1: It was Anna. She just completely disconnected from the seriousness
Speaker 1: of the situation. She did not seem to comprehend danger
Speaker 1: or risk or urgency. She she just seemed totally cool,
Speaker 1: totally calm, totally annoyed, and it was such a puzzling
Speaker 1: thing to walk into. They looked to me and they're like,
Speaker 1: we just need a functioning credit card, like the bill
Speaker 1: will be settled a pun check out, and she's like,
Speaker 1: can we just use yours for now? And I just
Speaker 1: did not see an alternative, you know, especially in the
Speaker 1: urgency of the moment and believing this person is still
Speaker 1: my friend, I just did not see another solution. Mind you, again,
Speaker 1: I did not know the cost of that trip, nor
Speaker 1: did I know my credit card could support that kind
Speaker 1: of a debt, nor did I know that debt would
Speaker 1: be going on my credit card. There are so many
Speaker 1: things that we know now that I didn't know then.
Speaker 1: But the day just unraveled from there, and by the
Speaker 1: time I left the next morning, I landed in France
Speaker 1: and got a text from Anna that said, like, the
Speaker 1: hotel manager is sending you a receipt. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I'll wire you seven thousand dollars to make sure everything's covered.
Speaker 1: And I felt so many different emotions all at once
Speaker 1: in that second. That was the first time I understood
Speaker 1: how expensive the chip was, so I was kind of
Speaker 1: racked with this strange gratitude and shocked because I would
Speaker 1: never I don't. I still don't fully understand how someone
Speaker 1: spends that much money and so little time. Rachel. One
Speaker 1: point you bring up when retelling this story is how
Speaker 1: people focus on the grandeur of it all, but you
Speaker 1: feel that focusing on the grandeur distracts from the real story.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that, um, I mean that
Speaker 1: at its heart, this is a story about, you know,
Speaker 1: the making and breaking of our friendship. That we came
Speaker 1: together fastest friends, spent a lot of time together, went
Speaker 1: on this grand trip, and it was beautiful and it
Speaker 1: was fun. But it's also why I think people tend
Speaker 1: to miss the point, because it's easy to sort of
Speaker 1: bask in the gossip girl quality or even looking at
Speaker 1: the inventing Hannah show itself, this like multimillion dollar production
Speaker 1: with front row of fashion seats and exotic yachts and jets,
Speaker 1: like it's sugarcoating something that at its core is is
Speaker 1: very rotten. It couldn't agree more. I mean, it really
Speaker 1: did distract attention. And you also mentioned how what was
Speaker 1: most alarming to you was how disengaged Anna was when
Speaker 1: things really started falling apart. What did it feel like
Speaker 1: to be with her disengagement? How did you make any
Speaker 1: sense of it? It was panic inducing because there wasn't
Speaker 1: sense to be made of it. When the men showed
Speaker 1: up in our ela and or demanding payment, it was
Speaker 1: very obvious that they were not going anywhere and that
Speaker 1: this conflict had reached a head. She would make herself
Speaker 1: to be the victim, like, why are they bothering me
Speaker 1: at this? Like I've already dealt with that, you know, excuses, excuses,
Speaker 1: the lack of panic, the lack of recognition when it
Speaker 1: came to the urgency of the situation. That's what caused
Speaker 1: me to take on her panic for her and to
Speaker 1: and to sort of internalize the danger in a different
Speaker 1: way because I felt like I was the only one
Speaker 1: aware of it. Something that's so unsettling in toxic people
Speaker 1: is how, in some cases a person is willing to
Speaker 1: let everyone else take on the messes and the chaos
Speaker 1: that they've caused. Did you sort of coolly sit back,
Speaker 1: disengage and let other people clean up the mess? If
Speaker 1: you're a rescuer, if you're someone who wants to fix things,
Speaker 1: you may find yourself trying to clean up the mess,
Speaker 1: a mess you didn't make, and they are definitely counting
Speaker 1: on that. So the plan was you were paying I mean,
Speaker 1: in essence, that egocentricity is that there's no danger for me,
Speaker 1: so there's no danger for anyone. And that was sort
Speaker 1: of how that was playing out. Why were you so
Speaker 1: confident that she would pay you back? I still believed
Speaker 1: that she was who she said she was. I believed
Speaker 1: she was having a falling out with her family. I
Speaker 1: believed that she was disorganized and had overspent some kind
Speaker 1: of allowance. I believed, though, in part because she was
Speaker 1: living in hotels full time, regardless of whether we were
Speaker 1: in Morocco or New York. What I'm hearing is it
Speaker 1: was plausible. I mean, it was absolutely plausible living as
Speaker 1: she did, and she had paid you some things back
Speaker 1: in the past to sort of set this tone. And
Speaker 1: so what then became the breaking point of realizing that
Speaker 1: this was actually a con and that led you to
Speaker 1: go to the authorities a sixty dollar in balance and
Speaker 1: my credit cards and and no clear sign of reimbrassement
Speaker 1: being on the way despite constant reassurances. It was this
Speaker 1: extreme disconnect between words and actions, you know, false promises
Speaker 1: like talking in circles, moving the goal post for every
Speaker 1: ten questions asked, getting maybe one answer, and it still
Speaker 1: didn't give me any actual clarity. So here we see
Speaker 1: a classical form of manipulation, making false promises, which is
Speaker 1: something called future faking. Then there is the talking encircles,
Speaker 1: which is something that's called word salad, talking but not
Speaker 1: really making any real sense, and then also not answering
Speaker 1: the question, which is really a form of gas lighting.
Speaker 1: We go into this next piece. Anna is now getting
Speaker 1: more famous and reinventing herself. What is it like for
Speaker 1: you to see her sort of succeed in this way
Speaker 1: and to see people get behind her despite her conduct.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of things I feel about that,
Speaker 1: most of them aren't personal. It's kind of frustrating at
Speaker 1: this point to be talking about this story because in
Speaker 1: life like I am happy, healthy, like don't think about
Speaker 1: Anna very much. You know, it's really not about her
Speaker 1: and me anymore. But I am speaking because I do
Speaker 1: think this is indicative of a sort of bigger picture
Speaker 1: issue with the way that our culture tends to reward
Speaker 1: narcissistic individuals who are larger than life, and they captivate
Speaker 1: us because they're entertaining and they say whatever they want,
Speaker 1: and they make these weird promises, and they do these
Speaker 1: quirky things, or they act in these like really bold,
Speaker 1: audacious ways. What I make of it looking at it now,
Speaker 1: it's like, my takeaway from this is that, you know,
Speaker 1: what I gave to Anna was my attention. I say,
Speaker 1: the stakes were low and it was frivolous, but I
Speaker 1: gave her my time and and that's not without value.
Speaker 1: That's how our behavior is influenced, That's how our our
Speaker 1: view of the world is influenced. Like you said, our
Speaker 1: attention is a resource and when we when we give
Speaker 1: it away, the story gets to stay alive. I watched
Speaker 1: the story and I said, oh my goodness, like this
Speaker 1: is just straight up a story of narcissism, and on
Speaker 1: top of that, blaming the individual who came into the
Speaker 1: narcissistic person's life, which is what my entire clinical practice
Speaker 1: is about. So when I saw your story, I actually
Speaker 1: became incensed, Thank you, right, I mean, I thought, what
Speaker 1: are they doing to this woman? She was harmed by
Speaker 1: this person and we are glorifying in some ways, you know,
Speaker 1: looking at the con with some grudging admiration, versus all
Speaker 1: of us are vulnerable to this story, all of us.
Speaker 1: I don't and anyone who thinks they're not, they couldn't
Speaker 1: be kind like this is going to get conned, to
Speaker 1: be frank with you, if anyone was that arrogant. Right.
Speaker 1: This takes me to this next question is that I
Speaker 1: think one of the struggles in this question, and like
Speaker 1: you said, they didn't even get the time frame right.
Speaker 1: For two years you had to sit with that credit card,
Speaker 1: you know, bill hanging over your head and that lack
Speaker 1: of resolution. But now we're telling the story at its end,
Speaker 1: and it seems like since you got the money back
Speaker 1: and your your book was successful, it's as though people
Speaker 1: are telling you, Rachel, you don't have the right to
Speaker 1: feel hurt. Yeah, It's like resilience is like antithetical to
Speaker 1: victimhood somehow, right. And so I think that the piece
Speaker 1: that I struggle with is that you don't get to
Speaker 1: have a feeling. And that to me, that that piece
Speaker 1: is really really messed up because the behavior you saw, right,
Speaker 1: the behavior you saw, the entitlement, the grandiosity, the and
Speaker 1: and I will argue lack of empathy. She didn't have
Speaker 1: empathy for you. You were an instrument. All of you
Speaker 1: were in this story of hers. The arrogance, the constant
Speaker 1: need for validation. I mean, this is like narcissism one
Speaker 1: oh one. To me, there's no other way to see this.
Speaker 1: And also the other ways that you were, You were gaslighted,
Speaker 1: your reality was doubted on regularly, and then she became
Speaker 1: very vindictive, and that vindictiveness, to me, was the icing
Speaker 1: on the cake that in romantic relationships we talked about
Speaker 1: something called post separation abuse, but I would argue that
Speaker 1: the point at which their friendship sort of cleaved off,
Speaker 1: she went at it with the same vindictiveness as, for example,
Speaker 1: an angry narcissistic partner would in a romantic relationship. And
Speaker 1: I think the way that the Netflix showmakers approached it
Speaker 1: in that television show, that's part of why I chose
Speaker 1: to speak up, just because I think it doesn't injustice
Speaker 1: to anybody who's been through relationship like that. And like
Speaker 1: I said, like this story has gotten attention for all
Speaker 1: kinds of reasons, since I have a platform and people
Speaker 1: will listen, Like, I feel like I have a responsibility
Speaker 1: to speak up because I do understand what's happened to
Speaker 1: her and the gaslighting. I learned hard. I didn't know
Speaker 1: at first. I learned. I read things. I tried to
Speaker 1: understand what had happened. I tried to you know, I
Speaker 1: wrote so that I could look at the events on
Speaker 1: paper and try and figure out what did I miss? What? Like?
Speaker 1: Where is my responsibility? Where you know? Where was I wronged? Like?
Speaker 1: How can I learn from this? Whatever? Like I come
Speaker 1: away from it with a better understanding of people and myself.
Speaker 1: We often think of gaslighting is one person to one person.
Speaker 1: Not only were you gaslighted by one person, then you
Speaker 1: were gaslighted by a system, and then honestly gaslighted by
Speaker 1: the world. And I can't think of anything more psychologically destabilizing,
Speaker 1: Rachel than going through that, because I have a real
Speaker 1: problem with this idea of Okay, sure, i'll meet you
Speaker 1: halfway on that one, Rachel. A bunch of privileged people
Speaker 1: doing privileged things and privileged setting. Sure, all great, But
Speaker 1: the feelings you had were real. I don't care how
Speaker 1: privilege the story was. That was real. I agree, So
Speaker 1: that was real, hurt. Thank you. There's a real cruelty.
Speaker 1: Forget individual narcissism. Honestly, the story you shared speaks of
Speaker 1: almost narcissism on a societal level, and that's really concerning
Speaker 1: to make I'm with you, thank you for giving it voice,
Speaker 1: because I feel that way. But I think having been
Speaker 1: through this for however many years, like process after process,
Speaker 1: just acknowledging privilege doesn't mean that it makes anything okay.
Speaker 1: I don't say that to undermine the fact that that
Speaker 1: distress was very real, that the repercussions were very real,
Speaker 1: to that the betrayal of trust was very like, it
Speaker 1: was all very real. I just think I've been through
Speaker 1: so many different iterations of this that I've come to
Speaker 1: realize that anything I say can and will be picked
Speaker 1: apart by people who are looking for reasons to blame
Speaker 1: me and correct to some extent that has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with me at the end of but at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, to the Rachel, shaming you puts
Speaker 1: all future victims at risk. That's that's where I struggle with, Like, Okay,
Speaker 1: go ahead, and you want to shame or shame her,
Speaker 1: But what that does is everybody else then, who feels
Speaker 1: that A if I come forward with any kind of
Speaker 1: story like this, people are going to shame me. And
Speaker 1: I'm too scared too, so I'm gonna have to put
Speaker 1: up and shut up, and that is a really dangerous paradigm.
Speaker 1: So it is so important, and I know it must
Speaker 1: be hard after all these years, because it sounds like
Speaker 1: you've moved forward and having gone through this, And since
Speaker 1: my life is thinking and talking and musing over a
Speaker 1: narcissism and psychopathy, do you have any questions for me
Speaker 1: after having gone through this experience? Just like, do you
Speaker 1: see an antidote? I guess to this sort of like
Speaker 1: toxic spread of not only celebrating but rewarding this kind
Speaker 1: of behavior in personality type a show like Inventing Anna,
Speaker 1: the way the story sort of played out in the media,
Speaker 1: all of that, that actually makes me feel more pessimistic
Speaker 1: because when I saw how quick people were to glorify
Speaker 1: the con, I thought, of course they're here, and of
Speaker 1: course their partner did this to them because they feel
Speaker 1: incentivized to do this. You know, the antidote is something
Speaker 1: that is so it feels impossible. I mean, it really
Speaker 1: is paying empathy forward. But the problem is if empathy
Speaker 1: is weaponized. That's an issue. When we see a case
Speaker 1: like you went through with the individual who who engaged
Speaker 1: in this behavior, I see absolutely no likelihood of change.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what the research literature would tell us
Speaker 1: to that somebody who so resolute in their lack of
Speaker 1: remorse and their belief they did nothing wrong, there's no
Speaker 1: way you're going to see any form of change there.
Speaker 1: So at the individual level, there's not likely to be
Speaker 1: an antidote. At the societal level, we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: switch up our game entirely. But as long as this
Speaker 1: stuff is clickbait, as long as this stuff gets eyes
Speaker 1: and views and virality and money, it's conversations like this
Speaker 1: to say, okay, everyone, I can. I looked at your
Speaker 1: so I said, I could have been conned easily, and
Speaker 1: and and I got really worried that everyone who's so
Speaker 1: arrogantly saying I wouldn't have gotten played. I said, oh wow,
Speaker 1: then that means you're going to be the X one
Speaker 1: who's going to get played by a narcissist, because at
Speaker 1: least I have the humility to know I can and
Speaker 1: I have been and I likely will be played again.
Speaker 1: And I think that that humility is where we get resolved,
Speaker 1: and that resolve is where we learned to set boundaries
Speaker 1: and be more discerning. And I think that discernment than
Speaker 1: Rachel becomes the key, and yours is also an interesting
Speaker 1: story to Rachel. Ironically, the solid beginning you had, loving parents,
Speaker 1: consistent loving you know, history with your family, close knit family,
Speaker 1: and then really good friendships. In a way, you're not
Speaker 1: even prepared for this, So I don't know if we
Speaker 1: have to put everyone in sort of toxic summer camp
Speaker 1: so they can learn this once and then go back
Speaker 1: to healthiness. But what it did do was give you
Speaker 1: resilience to be able to grow past this. My mom
Speaker 1: and dad will thank you for that, and I agree
Speaker 1: they did. I think that the fact that you're in
Speaker 1: a safe place to land in a way meant that
Speaker 1: your likelihood of connecting the dots into Anna as someone
Speaker 1: manipulative and cruel that needed to be walked away from.
Speaker 1: In fact, it went another direction that this was some
Speaker 1: bit where you could actually meet them with empathy. You
Speaker 1: can actually reach your hand out to the bully, as
Speaker 1: it were, which I think in in concept is beautiful,
Speaker 1: but practice is dangerous. Boundaries are important, Boundaries are everything.
Speaker 1: I think that ironically, that same sort of safety net,
Speaker 1: or you know, the healthy upbringing that led to resiliences
Speaker 1: and that, combined with working as a producer and always
Speaker 1: looking for creative solutions to complex problems. It's what allowed
Speaker 1: me to figure out, you know, book Dealer x y
Speaker 1: Z before I went to trial, which I think is
Speaker 1: part of why people didn't see me as a victim,
Speaker 1: because I had already managed to find resilience, and I
Speaker 1: think that is hard for most people to relate to
Speaker 1: share with this. Rachel, what are you working on now
Speaker 1: and how can people support you in the work that
Speaker 1: you're doing. I wouldn't ask anything of anybody. I appreciate
Speaker 1: anyone who's listening to this, and I wish you the
Speaker 1: best if you're going through something similar, And I appreciate
Speaker 1: curiosity and the desire to look deeper into something that
Speaker 1: at its surface may present as one thing, and at
Speaker 1: its core actually involves a lot more new than initially needs. Again,
Speaker 1: I thought your book was really fantastic. I really really
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. In fact, I had watched the series I
Speaker 1: was like, then I read your book and I was like, Wow,
Speaker 1: this is what I was looking for, which is a
Speaker 1: far more clear telling of the story. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think people who haven't read it, I highly recommend
Speaker 1: your book and I also thank you for elevating this
Speaker 1: story to the place of friendship. We talked about narcissism
Speaker 1: and families. We talk about narcissism and romantic relationships, but
Speaker 1: we don't talk about it in friendships. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a big mistake, because friendships are often really defining relationships,
Speaker 1: especially for younger people, people in their twenties and thirties,
Speaker 1: and can be just as impactful as any intimate relationship,
Speaker 1: and really impactful in some cases. So I think that
Speaker 1: sometimes we give friends a freer pass than we might
Speaker 1: give other people. And I think your story is a
Speaker 1: reminder that these kinds of toxic personality patterns can really
Speaker 1: do harm in any human relationship, whether it's a romantic
Speaker 1: relationship or a friendship. Thank you, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for giving at the space as well. Absolutely here are
Speaker 1: my final thoughts from my conversation with Rachel. Be aware
Speaker 1: that the very best part of you, your empathy, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: can actually make you a target. Yes, be empathic, but
Speaker 1: catch yourself when you justify other people's behavior. All of
Speaker 1: us have to stop glorifying Cohn people. Khan, men can,
Speaker 1: women can anyone, and we must stop blaming the victim,
Speaker 1: because when you do that, when you blame the victim,
Speaker 1: you really actually set yourself up for more self shame
Speaker 1: when a narcissistic relationship happens to you, and inevitably it
Speaker 1: will happen to you. None of us are safe from
Speaker 1: toxic relationships, whether you're from a happy family messed up family.
Speaker 1: For our family, that's sort of in between. Manipulation always
Speaker 1: plays on our trust, our core wounds, and our insecurity.
Speaker 1: We have to remember that cynical is not a bad word,
Speaker 1: and all of us need to let people earn our
Speaker 1: trust instead of just handing it over. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for listening. Lastly, make sure you subscribe on I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and please rate this podcast on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: This show was produced by executive producers Jada Pinkett Smith Falon,
Speaker 1: jethro Ellen, Rackitton, and Dr Romeny Dr Vassila, Also producer
Speaker 1: Matthew Jones, Associate producer maur Dela Rosa, and our editors
Speaker 1: and sound engineers Devin Donnahy and Calvin Bailiff.