"We are neither the cartoon evil serial killers, nor the 'its your boss' CEO's always chasing profit at the expense of everyone else. While we are both of those things, it is a sad caricature of itself."
I have been friends with a couple people with clear sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies, and this is absolutely true. Most have been trained to seek social inclusion like the rest of us. They just suck at it. The lack of empathy is a strength while running a con or worse, but a serious handicap when trying to build long-term social relationships. It's downright pathetic to watch them attempt their social cons on people who are intelligent and self-aware. If you know your own weaknesses you know when someone is trying to attack them. When it's malicious the psychopath gets the boot fast. When it's a harmless attempt to fit in, it just puts the psychopath in the awkwardly manipulative category. The lack of empathy means they often don't know why they've been ostracized.
FWIW, I have the opposite problem; a little too much empathy and guilt, but it gives me the same talent of seeing the weakness in people. Which is why I'm friends with them. They use my empathy for friendship, and I let them because it's absolutely fascinating watching them work.
My suggestion, from personal experience, is to beware.
When one owns a snake, there is a temptation to think he's "my" snake--he would never bite me. But he's a snake--he just may not have felt like it so far.
Building on what you've posted, psychopaths having diminished capacity to build relationships could very well lead to depression or atleast unhappiness. I find this really interesting because we often see a psychopath represented as a remorseless beast void of any human emotions yet, looking from this perspective, it almost paints psychopathy as a dibilating disorder.
I also note it probably wouldn't be correct for me to use psychopathy as the name of a disorder but it should be fine for casual discussion.
Its been a long while since I took psychology in college. What he was describing sounded fairly common to me as an adult.
"Joseph Newman, the head of the psychology department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimates that up to 1 percent of the general population in the United States can be described as psychopathic(1). This means that there are among us, roughly 3 million psychopaths."
If this is true, psychopaths should be concentrated heavily in certain careers such as sales.
There was a significant study which found higher rates of psychopathy (judged using standard psychometric scales devised by Hare et al) in high-level corporate environments than among violent criminals in prison.
I don't expect you to believe me on this one, so I am furiously trying to find a reference... Hopefully I'll be back to edit with a link.
EDIT: There is of course this book, written by the aforementioned Dr Hare, but still can't seem to find a paper. I remember seeing it in a recent BBC documentary on the subject, which interviewed him directly, which isn't exactly helpful.
"In this study, we had a unique opportunity to examine psychopathy and its correlates in a sample of 203 corporate professionals selected by their companies to participate in management development programs. The correlates included demographic and status variables, as well as in-house 360° assessments and performance ratings. The prevalence of psychopathic traits—as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) and a Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) “equivalent”—was higher than that found in community samples. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) indicated that the underlying latent structure of psychopathy in our corporate sample was consistent with that model found in community and offender studies. Psychopathy was positively associated with in-house ratings of charisma/presentation style (creativity, good strategic thinking and communication skills) but negatively associated with ratings of responsibility/performance (being a team player, management skills, and overall accomplishments)"
Looks like I misremembered the bit about a higher rate than in prisons, instead it is rather a significantly higher rate than in society at large.
The designation of 'mental disorder' is largely one of subjectivity and social convention. In some contexts, lack of emotional empathy is simply a gift[1]. As is the ability to apply rational empathy to a situation.
Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Would the world be a better place if we had more people acting like this? or the opposite case of applying social / emotional perceptions to a more cerebral context? I would argue (for many reasons) that the answer to this question is the former, whereas it has been the latter through most of human history.
The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years. More important that trying assimilate people with characteristics of psychopathy may be to foster this ability of the mind - keep children away from violence, keep young adults away from their egos.
[1] From my favorite new TV psychopath personality, Robert California of the Office: "I'll tell you some thing I find unproductive. Constantly worrying about where you stand based on inscrutable social cues, and then inevitably reframing it all in a reassuring way so that you can get to sleep at night. No, I do not believe in that at all. If I invited you to lunch, I think you're a winner. If I didn't I don't. But I just met you all. Life is long, opinons change. Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong."
"The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years."
How so?
Recent genetic evidence suggests that, among the various traits that distinguish modern humans from the hominids we outcompeted (such as Neanderthals), one of them is improved empathic capability. We are better able to read and respond to social cues than our less-adapted cousins were. Our ability to work cooperatively was a major competitive advantage, and quite possibly the most critical competitive advantage.
It may be true that psychopathic traits enable certain individuals to game the system, as it were, and succeed wildly in modern society. The stereotype of the Psychopath CEO is grounded in some reality, after all. But if everyone behaved psychopathically, then society would possibly cease to function as we know it -- probably for the worse.
actually, empathy is pretty great for our species as a whole. the lack of empathy is what allows psychopaths to ignore the impacts of their actions on other people.
if you knew for a fact that you wouldn't experience any negative effects (like going to jail, having people label you as an outcast, etc.), would you kill a complete stranger for $100? if you had no empathy, you would.
> Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Not really. Many psychopathic behaviours are irrational. I.e. their long-term goals do not correspond to their actions.
The way I look at it, there's a spectrum of selfishness+impulsivity with psychopathy at the extreme end.
I.e. the psychopath's need to do what he wants to do outweighs any other concerns, including possibly your right to not be harmed / live. This may not always be true, but the impulsivity makes it true at the critical moment.
Does that quote really apply? I don't see how is worrying about where you stand socially a result of empathy.
Sure, if you analyze with less emotional involvement, it's easier to control that "social game", but as the letter describes, they still validates themselves for their ability to do so.
Seems to me like the disregard for the whole thing -which is what that character seems to be saying- is more common in the stereotypical "nerd," which either is either oblivious to it or simply uninterested, and that doesn't necessarily indicate less empathy.
I suspect the default state of AI would be psychopathy. As I imagine it, an AI with goals, but not morals or empathy would behave exactly like a psychopath. Maybe psychopathy is the default state and empathy and morals are just evolutionary add-ons t encourage cooperation.
I don't, and I suspect the opposite may be true. It's easy to approach this from the perspective of Star Trek or early AI thinking, but that's flawed. We don't understand consciousness at present but we do understand a little bit about cognition and emotion, and we can infer what we see based on examples. It's tempting to think that emotion is the height of human consciousness (the classic Star Trek fallacy), but this is plainly not true. Animals much less mentally adept than humans experience emotion and feelings. Indeed, it seems quite likely that such responses are easier to bootstrap than self-awareness and fully developed perception of the world.
Personally I think we're more likely to see emotional robots before we see truly human level AI. There is still reason for caution of course because emotion does not rule out psychopathy. There is certainly a danger that malevolent or even merely competitive AIs could play the emotion game better than humans, and gain the upper hand (meaning: wealth, control, power, etc.) Consider how much emotion affects the entertainment industry, and the sheer amount of money involved (from TV and films to music to books to comics to games and even to restaurants and food, not to mention pornography and prostitution). Consider how much emotion plays into politics.
Overall I think Blade Runner and A.I. had it more right than Star Trek or Star Wars. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out of course.
The problem with the assumption that common people are inferior is that you will actually find proof that they are. It's a vicious cycle of self prophecy.
If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming. Johann Wolfgang vonGoethe [1749 - 1832]
Who's to say the entire letter isn't manipulation? After all it's written by a psychopath. "First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
I'd like to meet this person. It takes deliberate choice and a MUCH effort to act out against your nature. Though it may not be of the same degree, the effort shown here is not unlike that of a 12 year old suspected of ADD trying to do good in school.
My glass is raised this person.
And here is the ironic part. While the author of the letter chooses to place emotional stability over strategic ploys, most of our MBA schools, finance majors, corporate lawyers and hopeful business students want nothing more than to become what the author is coming away from.
"Such as statement might tempt you to say 'well obviously you're not a real psychopath then'. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain.
A slightly more benign (but still highly inaccurate) definition is that a psychopath is someone who feels little guilt or empathy for others. "
That's not accurate at all. He wants to claim he's still a psychopath because he thinks it's made him special, but he's -not- still a psychopath. He was cured of that.
He's also not the only non-psychopath with those abilities. The condition may have honed those abilities for him, but it's not the only way to obtain them.
I've always been interested in psychology, but I've been reading a little more recently. I think it's possible to use the concepts of 'control' and 'evolution' in relation to sociopaths; let me try to illustrate:
It's so-called human nature for individuals and groups to compete over resources - water, food, shelter, even sex, and latterly, money and power. I've been wondering whether this urge to control is in fact what is behind the behaviour of sociopaths. If we always had to have remorse whenever we obtained a resource, then would we survive as a species?
Of course sociopathy is a scale, not a division between 'good' and 'bad' people, but it's pretty clear from what's been going on at Wall Street (workplace of perhaps the most sociopathic group of people around) that there is a struggle going on - right now - between those in control and those who have lost power.
It's interesting that as history has progressed, communication tools have continued to bring people together -- but also extend the reach of influence and control. Wars have become larger and larger as communication has sped up and reached across broader distances. What we have now seems to me, perhaps extravagantly, to be a large scale confrontation between those in power and those outside.
We'll be witness to information wars - PR publications and spin, disinformation tactics, appeals to the heart - and perhaps some extreme exertion of control (note that the Occupy Boston protests have recently been suppressed by the police there -- and the Federal interpretation of the Patriot act is not standing up to scrutiny by legal questioners)
This might be a form of evolutionary conflict at a grand scale and fueled by social media (the thing that is really about to bring about a social singularity, well before any technological singularity) -- and because of this, we maybe have to question the people who are in control of the social media we use.
How does this relate to the original post? Note that the author is essentially arguing that psychopaths are part of humanity too and to be kept. I am not arguing that they should be controlled or destroyed; I think treatment is possible -- as does C.
Though it may seem cruel to say this in his death, looking at Steve Jobs' behavior when he was younger really makes me wonder whether he was a psychopath
Reminiscent of 'Blindsight', an SF novel by Peter Watts. Humans have resurrected the genes of vampires (don't stop reading! it's hard SF) who are psychopaths and humans' predators, with concomitant higher intelligence. For this intelligence and dispassion they're the perfect choice to command in life and death missions. It's a good book, and it contains a lot of the feel of this guy.
[+] [-] ahi|14 years ago|reply
I have been friends with a couple people with clear sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies, and this is absolutely true. Most have been trained to seek social inclusion like the rest of us. They just suck at it. The lack of empathy is a strength while running a con or worse, but a serious handicap when trying to build long-term social relationships. It's downright pathetic to watch them attempt their social cons on people who are intelligent and self-aware. If you know your own weaknesses you know when someone is trying to attack them. When it's malicious the psychopath gets the boot fast. When it's a harmless attempt to fit in, it just puts the psychopath in the awkwardly manipulative category. The lack of empathy means they often don't know why they've been ostracized.
FWIW, I have the opposite problem; a little too much empathy and guilt, but it gives me the same talent of seeing the weakness in people. Which is why I'm friends with them. They use my empathy for friendship, and I let them because it's absolutely fascinating watching them work.
[+] [-] ericb|14 years ago|reply
When one owns a snake, there is a temptation to think he's "my" snake--he would never bite me. But he's a snake--he just may not have felt like it so far.
[+] [-] jwdunne|14 years ago|reply
I also note it probably wouldn't be correct for me to use psychopathy as the name of a disorder but it should be fine for casual discussion.
[+] [-] alnayyir|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] AJ007|14 years ago|reply
"Joseph Newman, the head of the psychology department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison estimates that up to 1 percent of the general population in the United States can be described as psychopathic(1). This means that there are among us, roughly 3 million psychopaths."
If this is true, psychopaths should be concentrated heavily in certain careers such as sales.
[+] [-] JonnieCache|14 years ago|reply
I don't expect you to believe me on this one, so I am furiously trying to find a reference... Hopefully I'll be back to edit with a link.
EDIT: There is of course this book, written by the aforementioned Dr Hare, but still can't seem to find a paper. I remember seeing it in a recent BBC documentary on the subject, which interviewed him directly, which isn't exactly helpful.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xfIEVtzj52YC
EDIT: AHA! Here it is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bsl.925/pdf
"In this study, we had a unique opportunity to examine psychopathy and its correlates in a sample of 203 corporate professionals selected by their companies to participate in management development programs. The correlates included demographic and status variables, as well as in-house 360° assessments and performance ratings. The prevalence of psychopathic traits—as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) and a Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV) “equivalent”—was higher than that found in community samples. The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) indicated that the underlying latent structure of psychopathy in our corporate sample was consistent with that model found in community and offender studies. Psychopathy was positively associated with in-house ratings of charisma/presentation style (creativity, good strategic thinking and communication skills) but negatively associated with ratings of responsibility/performance (being a team player, management skills, and overall accomplishments)"
Looks like I misremembered the bit about a higher rate than in prisons, instead it is rather a significantly higher rate than in society at large.
[+] [-] jonmc12|14 years ago|reply
Physiological concerns aside, observed psychopathy is more or less a variation of behavior that allows the individual to apply more cerebral perceptions to social / emotional contexts.
Would the world be a better place if we had more people acting like this? or the opposite case of applying social / emotional perceptions to a more cerebral context? I would argue (for many reasons) that the answer to this question is the former, whereas it has been the latter through most of human history.
The capacity to act as a 'psychopath' may very well be a necessary evolution of our culture, and in fact may become a desired genetic trait in future years. More important that trying assimilate people with characteristics of psychopathy may be to foster this ability of the mind - keep children away from violence, keep young adults away from their egos.
[1] From my favorite new TV psychopath personality, Robert California of the Office: "I'll tell you some thing I find unproductive. Constantly worrying about where you stand based on inscrutable social cues, and then inevitably reframing it all in a reassuring way so that you can get to sleep at night. No, I do not believe in that at all. If I invited you to lunch, I think you're a winner. If I didn't I don't. But I just met you all. Life is long, opinons change. Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong."
[+] [-] jonnathanson|14 years ago|reply
How so?
Recent genetic evidence suggests that, among the various traits that distinguish modern humans from the hominids we outcompeted (such as Neanderthals), one of them is improved empathic capability. We are better able to read and respond to social cues than our less-adapted cousins were. Our ability to work cooperatively was a major competitive advantage, and quite possibly the most critical competitive advantage.
It may be true that psychopathic traits enable certain individuals to game the system, as it were, and succeed wildly in modern society. The stereotype of the Psychopath CEO is grounded in some reality, after all. But if everyone behaved psychopathically, then society would possibly cease to function as we know it -- probably for the worse.
[+] [-] andylei|14 years ago|reply
if you knew for a fact that you wouldn't experience any negative effects (like going to jail, having people label you as an outcast, etc.), would you kill a complete stranger for $100? if you had no empathy, you would.
[+] [-] JabavuAdams|14 years ago|reply
Not really. Many psychopathic behaviours are irrational. I.e. their long-term goals do not correspond to their actions.
The way I look at it, there's a spectrum of selfishness+impulsivity with psychopathy at the extreme end.
I.e. the psychopath's need to do what he wants to do outweighs any other concerns, including possibly your right to not be harmed / live. This may not always be true, but the impulsivity makes it true at the critical moment.
[+] [-] icebraining|14 years ago|reply
Sure, if you analyze with less emotional involvement, it's easier to control that "social game", but as the letter describes, they still validates themselves for their ability to do so.
Seems to me like the disregard for the whole thing -which is what that character seems to be saying- is more common in the stereotypical "nerd," which either is either oblivious to it or simply uninterested, and that doesn't necessarily indicate less empathy.
[+] [-] ericb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluekeybox|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomasz|14 years ago|reply
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
[+] [-] icebraining|14 years ago|reply
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
Personally I think we're more likely to see emotional robots before we see truly human level AI. There is still reason for caution of course because emotion does not rule out psychopathy. There is certainly a danger that malevolent or even merely competitive AIs could play the emotion game better than humans, and gain the upper hand (meaning: wealth, control, power, etc.) Consider how much emotion affects the entertainment industry, and the sheer amount of money involved (from TV and films to music to books to comics to games and even to restaurants and food, not to mention pornography and prostitution). Consider how much emotion plays into politics.
Overall I think Blade Runner and A.I. had it more right than Star Trek or Star Wars. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out of course.
[+] [-] subaruWRX55|14 years ago|reply
If we treat people as they are, we make them worse. If we treat people as they ought to be, we help them become what they are capable of becoming. Johann Wolfgang vonGoethe [1749 - 1832]
[+] [-] adrianwaj|14 years ago|reply
"In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy."
Any feeling you give will be used against you in their treacherous games - you won't get true feeling back. Don't be their stepping stone.
[+] [-] ams6110|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namank|14 years ago|reply
My glass is raised this person.
And here is the ironic part. While the author of the letter chooses to place emotional stability over strategic ploys, most of our MBA schools, finance majors, corporate lawyers and hopeful business students want nothing more than to become what the author is coming away from.
[+] [-] Alex3917|14 years ago|reply
http://www.sociopathworld.com/p/frequently-asked-questions.h...
[+] [-] wccrawford|14 years ago|reply
A slightly more benign (but still highly inaccurate) definition is that a psychopath is someone who feels little guilt or empathy for others. "
That's not accurate at all. He wants to claim he's still a psychopath because he thinks it's made him special, but he's -not- still a psychopath. He was cured of that.
He's also not the only non-psychopath with those abilities. The condition may have honed those abilities for him, but it's not the only way to obtain them.
[+] [-] gnaritas|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpdoctor|14 years ago|reply
There are some that are amazingly smooth and seem completely normal. You don't even notice until the tip of the knife is penetrating your back.
[+] [-] sambeau|14 years ago|reply
http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_...
[+] [-] jka|14 years ago|reply
It's so-called human nature for individuals and groups to compete over resources - water, food, shelter, even sex, and latterly, money and power. I've been wondering whether this urge to control is in fact what is behind the behaviour of sociopaths. If we always had to have remorse whenever we obtained a resource, then would we survive as a species?
Of course sociopathy is a scale, not a division between 'good' and 'bad' people, but it's pretty clear from what's been going on at Wall Street (workplace of perhaps the most sociopathic group of people around) that there is a struggle going on - right now - between those in control and those who have lost power.
It's interesting that as history has progressed, communication tools have continued to bring people together -- but also extend the reach of influence and control. Wars have become larger and larger as communication has sped up and reached across broader distances. What we have now seems to me, perhaps extravagantly, to be a large scale confrontation between those in power and those outside.
We'll be witness to information wars - PR publications and spin, disinformation tactics, appeals to the heart - and perhaps some extreme exertion of control (note that the Occupy Boston protests have recently been suppressed by the police there -- and the Federal interpretation of the Patriot act is not standing up to scrutiny by legal questioners)
This might be a form of evolutionary conflict at a grand scale and fueled by social media (the thing that is really about to bring about a social singularity, well before any technological singularity) -- and because of this, we maybe have to question the people who are in control of the social media we use.
How does this relate to the original post? Note that the author is essentially arguing that psychopaths are part of humanity too and to be kept. I am not arguing that they should be controlled or destroyed; I think treatment is possible -- as does C.
[+] [-] Jage|14 years ago|reply
Anyone else see the commonalities?
[+] [-] queensnake|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobeyonekenobi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhugiaskmak|14 years ago|reply
http://www.jonronson.com/psycho.html
He also wrote The Men Who Stare at Goats, if you've read that or seen the movie.
[+] [-] lallysingh|14 years ago|reply
Dude, wtf?
[+] [-] adelevie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vadiml|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] westiseast|14 years ago|reply