Where they can look remarkably similar
This is where the comparison becomes psychologically fascinating.
Someone describing a person as “demonic” may be responding to behaviors such as:
  • Dehumanization — treating another person as an object rather than a human being.
  • Cruelty without apparent remorse
  • Deliberate psychological torment
  • Manipulation and deception
  • Exploitation of vulnerability
  • Creating fear and confusion
  • Isolation from sources of support
  • Controlling another person’s reality
  • Enjoying or appearing indifferent to another person’s suffering
  • Repeated boundary violations
  • Destruction of relationships, reputation, finances, or self-worth
  • A striking discrepancy between the public persona and private behavior
Those characteristics can make victims describe an abusive person in almost supernatural terms:
“It was like I was dealing with something evil.”
That experience should not be dismissed. The feeling can be completely real even when the explanation is psychological rather than supernatural.
The predatory element is particularly important
A predator doesn’t merely have anger or poor emotional regulation.
Predation involves exploitation.
The person identifies something they can use—another person’s vulnerability, loneliness, compassion, sexuality, finances, fear, trauma, need for approval, children, reputation, or desire for love—and turns that vulnerability into leverage.
A predator may therefore appear extraordinarily charming, generous, compassionate, or protective at first.
That’s one reason predatory abuse can be so difficult to recognize.
The mask isn’t necessarily the absence of the predator. Sometimes the mask is part of the predation.
And here’s a critical distinction
An abusive person does not have to be mentally ill to be abusive.
And someone with a mental-health disorder is not automatically abusive or predatory.
Likewise, a person who behaves terribly doesn’t necessarily meet criteria for psychopathy, narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or any other diagnosis.
The safest professional approach is:
Describe the behavior before assigning the explanation.
Instead of:
“He’s demonic.”
A clinical formulation might be:
“He demonstrates a persistent pattern of coercive control, manipulation, exploitation, intimidation, deception, boundary violations, and apparent lack of accountability.”
That statement is much harder to dismiss because it can be demonstrated.
The deepest similarity
Both concepts ultimately revolve around a perception of malevolence directed toward another person.
But there is a profound difference in what we’re asking:
The spiritual question:
“What is this person’s spiritual nature or influence?”
The psychological question:
“What is this person doing, why might they be doing it, and what pattern of behavior does it create?”
For advocates, clinicians, and courts, the second question is usually the more useful one.
Because you don’t actually have to prove that someone is “evil” to establish that their behavior is dangerous.
And perhaps the most important principle is:
You don’t have to determine whether someone’s behavior is demonic to recognize that it is abusive, predatory, dangerous, and profoundly destructive.

 

Dr. Kathie Mathis, Psy.D, DD, NCP#00775, CAMS-V, CBIF, CDVC, CDAC, CSOC, CCAC, CCAI, CLC, CSTC, CSAC, CPI;

CEO California Behavioral Institute; Presidential and FBI award recipient; author; Master Trainer; Activist/Advocate; court expert-testimony; expert in Domestic Violence perpetrators and victims; child abuse; Human trafficking; Podcaster; Trauma Specialist; TV consultant; Judicial trainer/consultant; co-Founder California Assoc. of Anger Management Providers; National Training Director NWCAVE