Study: 1 in 25 Business Leaders May Be Psychopaths

[Xunzian]

Taking it in reverse order:

But yeah, you know. If we want to talk about erecting a society that promotes a strong psychological/moral fiber according to cultural norms, I'm all about that. We'd probably disagree about what all those norms should be, but at least we have the idea in common.

I think that is basically where we need to start. A society needs values, needs a narrative. But we've talked about this sort of thing before and agreed that society needs values and discuss which values those ought be.

But 'psychopath' has this kinda punchy 'supervillian' sound to it, so if certain folks can use it to denigrate the business world, then certain folks will jump at the chance. Also, I disagree that it's not about the businessmen themselves. If you read this thread, that seems to be exactly what it's about- that psychopaths make it in the business world is taken as further evidence that the 'business world' is an evil edifice.

We do have negative associations with psychopathy, which is why "psychopathy" is no longer recognized in the mental health field. To a certain extent it is just a case of "same shit, different name" but the name had to change because of the overwhelmingly negative association with psychopaths. There is a clear case of framing going on here.

I'm sympathetic to that attitude, you know. But it seems like it's on it's head from the kind of thing I would expect to hear. What I would expect to hear is, "Isn't it great that somebody with a non-standard psychological makeup can find a niche and even thrive in our diverse society!" If we were talking about any number of other mental disorders or non-normative mental states or whatever, I think that's exactly what would be said.

With other types of mental disorders, I'd agree to an extent but I think personality disorders are pretty much always viewed negatively even when the person is successful. For example, the acting community is heavily enriched for people with Histrionic Personality Disorder. That makes sense, someone who is constantly seeking attention would naturally gravitate towards performing in front of crowds. However, when people complain about Hollywood stars and the like, what they are complaining about are things that would be heavily enriched in people with HPD. The inappropriate attention seeking, the need for instant gratification, inappropriate seductive behavior and all that. We don't say, "Good for them!" we say "What the hell is their problem?!" Other times the success doesn't even make sense because of how society's values are configured. I bet someone with OCD would make an amazing cleaner. Those floors would be spotless! But is it a good idea to make someone with OCD a janitor?

[Uccisore]

We do have negative associations with psychopathy, which is why "psychopathy" is no longer recognized in the mental health field. To a certain extent it is just a case of "same shit, different name" but the name had to change because of the overwhelmingly negative association with psychopaths. There is a clear case of framing going on here.

Yeah, that was my understanding, is that 'psychopath' was sort of like 'crazy' or 'retarded'- we don't use it anymore. Which makes me wonder why this study is about 'psychopaths' in the first place, and not 'people with borderline personality disorder', or whatever they're calling it these days.

With other types of mental disorders, I'd agree to an extent but I think personality disorders are pretty much always viewed negatively even when the person is successful. For example, the acting community is heavily enriched for people with Histrionic Personality Disorder. That makes sense, someone who is constantly seeking attention would naturally gravitate towards performing in front of crowds. However, when people complain about Hollywood stars and the like, what they are complaining about are things that would be heavily enriched in people with HPD. The inappropriate attention seeking, the need for instant gratification, inappropriate seductive behavior and all that. We don't say, "Good for them!" we say "What the hell is their problem?!" Other times the success doesn't even make sense because of how society's values are configured. I bet someone with OCD would make an amazing cleaner. Those floors would be spotless! But is it a good idea to make someone with OCD a janitor?

I've wondered if all genius might not be like that. People like your Einsteins and so on- what if they're just mentally disordered folks who's bizarre fixations or extreme behaviors just happen to be channeled towards something that benefits society, instead of fingerpainting with their own poo or whatever? And don't even get me started about morticians!

[Uccisore]

I don't know why you think idealism even matters towards being a psychopath though, ideology really has nothing to do with it.

Because psychopaths aren’t idealistic. They are incapable of comprehending concepts beyond their own personal gratification. Including the self and anything outside of the self. They are only gratified and defined by how others react to them[/quote]

I am skeptical of this. I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that a person with no natural empathy or ability to feel any interest or moral obligation to other people beyond how they may be of use, who nevertheless finds themselves embedded in a society full of moral norms, might use ideology as a sort of surrogate for compassion.

[felix dakat]

Psychopathy and narcissism seem to be becoming more common in our society, kind of like obesity. We need to begin to think in terms of a spectrum of psychopathic disorders. I mean enjoying making a subordinate squirm in a meeting psychopathy shows only a faint family resemblance to serial killer psychopathy. A Jack Nicholson-like psychopath on the guest list might help to spice up the party but please don't invite Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz types.

[Xunzian]

I agree that they seem to be but I'm not sure if that isn't just a case of "everything is the opposite of how it is." Right now people talk about how people don't have a long enough childhood when people are free of responsibilities and fiscally dependent on their parents for a longer period of time than any other period in history. Is there anything to back up that assertion? It seems right from the guy but that isn't really a good standpoint for philosophizing.

Or rather, it is a great starting point. But we need to use empiricism and rationalism to find what we already know to be true. When empiricism and rationalism conflict with what we know to be true, there is admittedly less joy but a great deal more introspection. We need both.

[felix dakat]

I don't have data that confirms that the incidence of psychopathy is increasing. A more precise definition might help. A Wikipedia points out, currently, neither psychopathy nor sociopathy are valid diagnoses described in the DSM-IV-TR. Instead, the technical diagnosis is antisocial personality disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM IV-TR), defines antisocial personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]
A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
B) The individual is at least age 18 years.
C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.

New evidence points to the possibility that children often develop antisocial personality disorder as a result of environmental as well as genetic influence. The individual must be at least 18 years of age to be diagnosed with this disorder (Criterion B), but those commonly diagnosed with ASPD as adults were diagnosed with conduct disorder as children. The prevalence of this disorder is 3% in males and 1% from females, as stated in the DSM IV-TR.

[Xunzian]

I brought up the fact that "psychopathy" is no longer recognized earlier.

But I agree with you, there isn't any evidence to support the gut position that narcissism and psychopathy are increasing. It seems more of a "damned kids!" argument.

Indeed, I'd argue that it is decreasing. I mean, you wanna talk about lack of empathy, let's talk about lynching. Let's talk about violent racism. That is way, way down. The future looks bright. Stop being such a reactionary, pining for a past that never existed.

[Uccisore]

The most interesting thing to me in this long train of speculation is why the word "Psychopath" is used in the article if it's not only an unfavored terminology, but not even something that can be reliably diagnosed in the first place.

[felix dakat]

Reactionary? No. I'm on a mission from God! Got your rose colored glasses on do you?

[Fent]

Uccisore wrote
But 'psychopath' has this kinda punchy 'supervillian' sound to it, so if certain folks can use it to denigrate the business world, then certain folks will jump at the chance.
Also, I disagree that it's not about the businessmen themselves. If you read this thread, that seems to be exactly what it's about- that psychopaths make it in the business world is taken as further evidence that the 'business world' is an evil edifice.

Bingo.

[Fent]

I am very skeptical of the use of the term 'pyschopaths' in the context of business.

The general argument for such claims goes like this:

I am suffering. Who is to blame?

Those in power must be to blame.

Who is in power?

Business leaders.

That's it, business leaders are to blame for my suffering. Hence, they are 'evil' and 'psychopaths'.


One can simply substitute "business leaders" for politicians or any one else in a position of power.
I would hypothesize that if philosopher-types were to be in power little would change. Philosopher-types are secret tyrannists anyway, they are just too dishonest to admit it. Philosophers, probably more than anyone, are types who place stringent moral imperatives above everyone to act in such and such a manner. And if they don't, feel their wrath via the pen!

[Flannel Jesus]

Right, how tyrannical. Follow my rules or else I'll WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU! That sounds pretty fucking evil, huh?

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I am very skeptical of the use of the term 'pyschopaths' in the context of business.

The general argument for such claims goes like this:

I am suffering. Who is to blame?

Those in power must be to blame.

Who is in power?

Business leaders.

That's it, business leaders are to blame for my suffering. Hence, they are 'evil' and 'psychopaths'.


One can simply substitute "business leaders" for politicians or any one else in a position of power.
I would hypothesize that if philosopher-types were to be in power little would change. Philosopher-types are secret tyrannists anyway, they are just too dishonest to admit it. Philosophers, probably more than anyone, are types who place stringent moral imperatives above everyone to act in such and such a manner. And if they don't, feel their wrath via the pen!

I've probably never seen that general argument.

[Fent]

Right, how tyrannical. Follow my rules or else I'll WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU! That sounds pretty fucking evil, huh?

The intent to dominate is there, they just lack the balls to implement it.

[Flannel Jesus]

So the people who dominate are tyrants and the ones who don't lack balls. Is there any way to get your approval, Mr. Fent?

[felix dakat]

Right, how tyrannical. Follow my rules or else I'll WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU! That sounds pretty fucking evil, huh?

The intent to dominate is there, they just lack the balls to implement it.

Right. Philosophy so called can be a cowardly manifesation of the will to power. You see it on ILP when posters resort to whatever unscrupulous tactic necessary to win the argument.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Right, how tyrannical. Follow my rules or else I'll WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU! That sounds pretty fucking evil, huh?

The intent to dominate is there, they just lack the balls to implement it.

Right. Philosophy so called can be a cowardly manifesation of the will to power. You see it on ILP when posters resort to whatever unscrupulous tactic necessary to win the argument.

What about when posters resort to whatever scrupulous tactic that is necessary to win the argument, then what?

[fuse]

Let's throw another variable into the mix, moral outlook. Here's a recent article about a study that links psychopathy/machiavellianism with utilitarianism: http://www.economist.com/node/21530078

[felix dakat]

What about when posters resort to whatever scrupulous tactic that is necessary to win the argument, then what?

Then will to power is tempered by intellectual integrity.

[Fent]

Business leaders, and others in positions of power, have to sometimes make hard decisions. Sometimes it takes a certain ruthlessness, a certain hardness in making decisions that can easily be construed by others as 'psychopathic'. You can't please everybody all of the time. There's no such thing as a completely harmonious society where we all hold hands and dance and sing together. Rulers need to rule and often this is often misunderstood as 'evil'.

Using the current criteria labeling business leaders as 'psychopathic', philosophers, particularly moral philosophers, can also be labeled as such. I mean, morality is all about telling or forcing others to act in such and such a manner, thereby ruling out all alternative ways of acting.This is no different from the supposed lack of empathy from business leaders.

[Svettypoo]

Maybe business leaders are just more true to themselves than other individuals. Other individuals might say what they think they "should" say when answering the questionnaire. This would come from preconceived notions of what is acceptable and what isn't.

[Duality]

yea, corporatocracy is basically an enclave of Satan

[Duality]

I am skeptical of this. I'm no psychologist, but it seems to me that a person with no natural empathy or ability to feel any interest or moral obligation to other people beyond how they may be of use, who nevertheless finds themselves embedded in a society full of moral norms, might use ideology as a sort of surrogate for compassion.

they may use it, but imitation is no indication of understanding

Business leaders, and others in positions of power, have to sometimes make hard decisions. Sometimes it takes a certain ruthlessness, a certain hardness in making decisions that can easily be construed by others as 'psychopathic'. You can't please everybody all of the time. There's no such thing as a completely harmonious society where we all hold hands and dance and sing together. Rulers need to rule and often this is often misunderstood as 'evil'.

Using the current criteria labeling business leaders as 'psychopathic', philosophers, particularly moral philosophers, can also be labeled as such. I mean, morality is all about telling or forcing others to act in such and such a manner, thereby ruling out all alternative ways of acting.This is no different from the supposed lack of empathy from business leaders.

this would be true if philosophers werent godly specimens in comparison to these douchebags. seeing as how that is not the case, this whole argument is laughable

Right. Philosophy so called can be a cowardly manifesation of the will to power. You see it on ILP when posters resort to whatever unscrupulous tactic necessary to win the argument.

This is because philosophy is by nature an individual pursuit. The only real commonalities necessary are things like knowledge of language, logic, empiricism, basic mathematics, etc. And these only to the extent that one is able to refute or deny them if they wanted to.

Most people dont know or care about who the CEO of most major businesses are. After death, they are all but forgotten in the sands of time. A great philosopher's legacy trancends temporal limitations and thrives long after their demise. Thus a philosopher's power and influence is astronomical in comparison.

[Fent]

Duality wrote
this would be true if philosophers werent godly specimens in comparison to these douchebags. seeing as how that is not the case, this whole argument is laughable

I don't follow.
It's laughable because philosophers are douchebags like business leaders?

[Duality]

Duality wrote
this would be true if philosophers werent godly specimens in comparison to these douchebags. seeing as how that is not the case, this whole argument is laughable

I don't follow.
It's laughable because philosophers are douchebags like business leaders?

hows your mother doing?