If this is taken to extreme, it's actually very bad. Leaders who don't care for their followers cause a lot of anguish. And how will polite society fare if nobody cares how anyone else feels? So if society needs 90% of people to be self conscious and follow norms, are they all the suckers?
I think that's an over-use of the word sociopath. I think sociopaths lack empathy in general, but there might be a lot of reasons why normal people in leadership roles end up not caring for their followers. Rich and powerful people might feel disgusted by the poor, for example. The strong might be disgusted by the weak. Or within powerful circles a close in-group mentality might develop, so members feel little empathy for those who aren't in their group. Powerful people might even be insulated from reality, becoming emotionally detached from the consequences of their actions, and unable to equate the abstract information and statistics they receive with genuine human suffering. Maybe some even stop feeling empathy as a coping mechanism to lighten the burden of responsibility.
There are many industries (investment banking?) where empathy can hurt. For most of us, empathy helps. If you have customers, you need empathy. If you have counterparties, it can hurt. If you have employees you need empathy. If you outsource your work on fixed contract, empathy can hurt.
Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend. Any human can be a "sociopath", simply cause someone to feel disgust towards another and watch the empathy fade away. Put personal gain in the way, and it's not even a question. There is nothing sociopathic about acting "cooly rational" around someone you don't like as it is standard human behavior.
The article could be rewritten with one sentence: "don't be naive".
> Defining people as "sociopaths" is a stupid pop-psychology trend.
Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes.
It will be interesting to see how neuroscience deals with such labels, as more objective causes for human behavior are matched up with effects, over the coming decades as psychological interpretations are finally set aside.
Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes.
It has a precise psychiatric definition, based on the results of a particular psychometric assessment (PCL-R). Whether this qualifies as "objective" to satisfy a CS/math practitioner, I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
>> Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes.
> It has a precise psychiatric definition ...
Surely you are aware that "psychiatric definition" is a contradiction in terms? That the DSM consists entirely of lists of symptoms, and no causes, which allows a great deal of latitude in diagnosis?
> Whether this qualifies as "objective", I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
Perhaps you should read the controversy surrounding the just-released DSM-5, in which new conditions were added by -- clinical research? -- no, by people voting in secret. The outcome was so embarrassing that the director of the NIMH has reluctantly decided to abandon the DSM as a source for science (it will remain as a diagnostic guide).
A quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better."
Also, read the history of Asperger Syndrome -- once believed to be a rare condition, then its inclusion in DSM-IV resulted in an epidemic of false diagnoses, then reluctantly removed from DSM-5.
Your comments suggest that different qualified practitioners can use the DSM to arrive as the same diagnosis, given the same symptom set. But this has never been true and is not true now. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed. Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. A person who scores a 0 or a "perfect 40" on the PCL is a pretty clear diagnosis.
Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. See, for example, the article about Dr Kent Kiehl in the New Yorker.
> The PCL-R is not part of the DSM, but it is framed in a similar way.
If psychology were a science, there would be precisely one catalog of mental conditions, not as many as there are people who care to publish their own list. And the catalog would list causes as well as effects, something famously absent in modern psychological practice.
> There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed
Imperfections? Psychiatrists and psychologists famously and consistently cannot agree on diagnoses, when confronted by the same subjects. The reason is that no one knows what causes these conditions, which makes psychological clinical practice an exercise in symptomatic relief.
> Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases.
Asperger Syndrome was removed from DSM-5 because all the cases were edge cases -- the diagnosis had no objective validity whatsoever. This pattern is true for many similar conditions. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
> Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI.
If the work were more advanced (if it were anything more than a correlation), we might consider removing sociopathy from the domain of psychology and give it to neuroscience. But we won't get away with that -- psychologists are notoriously protective of their turf.
Also, the "signature" to which you refer is a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship, it isn't definitive and it doesn't identify a source for the condition.
And finally, present evidence suggests that all serious mental conditions are ultimately organic, so describing them as having an organic basis is sort of self-evident.
In addition to theorique's comment, there is a huge literature on the neuroscience of sociopathy going back 10+ years, showing some significant activation differences particularly around social/emotional processing areas in the brain.
It has been extensively studied in part because it's such an insidious personality disorder that many high-functioning people have to varying degrees, and the depth of psychological research on the topic very quickly shows how wrong mjfl's comments are. There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
That may all be true, but people won't stop using "sociopath" in any way they please until its cause is uncovered and objective diagnostic criteria are established. Remember that the DSM simply lists symptoms, not causes, which allows great latitude for interpretation -- and misinterpretation.
The cause of that condition we informally call "sociopathy" won't be uncovered by psychiatry or psychology. For that, we need neuroscience. And to date neuroscience isn't ready to shoulder the load.
> There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
The absence of science in psychiatry and psychology should prevent anyone from seriously arguing that any imaginable use of the word "sociopath" is morally or ethically wrong. This may change in the future, but at the moment, such terms have no objective definition.
More like "think for yourself". Sadly it doesn't come with the good advice to sort out your priorities first. I mean seriously, if the only thing you're able get out of a party is snack food, then you're doing social interaction wrong.
I read the first couple of chapters of that book and it simply wasn't believable. Too many serial-killer cliches, too strong an odor of creative writing classes. Pretty clearly a work of fiction
I'm confused as to why you would expect good writing. To me, if it were polished in that regard, that would indicate a constructive effort. That it sounds like it was written by a 16-year-old makes perfect sense.
Well, those rules are really for the petty sociopath. If you do it, do it big.
1. Disregard unspoken rules, but not the small ones like not donating at the museum, think more rules like "you just can't enter this industry", "you can't just schedule a meeting with that CEO". Those can have an immense ROI, while the petty ones may get you a punch to the face.
2. You should also live in the best place possible for your budget - negotiate down to the last dollar, but not for some shi%%y apartment in some shi%%y ghetto.
3. Rule 3 seems accurate - if you can't do it on your own, take some drugs :-).
4. A few prepared anecdotes is short sighted - you should learn human psychology and the art of social manipulation for the best results.
5. Or get them from the inside - blend in, build up support, then announce your true intentions (aka the dictator way).
This man gets it. I liked the article until the examples. They felt like something out of a gossip magazine rather than someone who has a "bloodless rationality"
>1. Disregard unspoken rules, but not the small ones like
>not donating at the museum, think more rules like "you just
>can't enter this industry", "you can't just schedule a
>meeting with that CEO". Those can have an immense ROI,
>while the petty ones may get you a punch to the face.
Not sure if this is a good example. I've unsuccessfully proposed meetings with someone above me from a different department. Maybe I should've created Outlook invitations? ;)
But did it have any negative consequences? Trying and not succeeding is better than not trying at all - there's always the chance that you will get the desired result (maybe by applying Rule 4 :-))...
Even if the entire book is embellishment and lies, at the very least, the book should reveal a sociopath as they wish to be viewed, which in itself is interesting.
True. And my belief is that "successful" "happy" and "satisfied" are all things which she wants to signal (just like most of non-"sociopaths"). So using her testimony as evidence for living her lifestyle is silly.
Which, given ME's hatred for narcissists, is a pretty good demonstration that the author of the article selected the quotes to his own bias rather than to provide a balanced view of the book's content.
This is really stupid. You don't have to be sociopathic to disregard convention and think things through for yourself. Much better to seek enlightenment and self awareness, and then make rational choices about which emotions you indulge and which you discard. Disregarding all empathy is only useful for obtaining material things, the desire for which is itself irrational and self-defeating for non-sociopaths.
To give an example, I personally don't say prepared anecdotes and eat extra food at parties. I have fun at parties and engage people in enjoyable conversations. When I meet new people I'm warm and friendly and I make an effort to form genuine connections. As a consequence, people like me and I have close friends who love me and enjoy my company. You can't look at all the fun and laughter and human warmth I have in my life and tell me I should trade it all in for some snack food and a more calculated image. That is completely stupid. Only someone who cannot enjoy human company should think like that, and those people should be pitied not admired.
I find the article repugnant; it glorifies selfishness.
> How to apply [rule #1 ]to your own life: Ignore "suggested donation" pleas at museums, always help yourself to more food and drinks at dinner parties and recline your seat all the way back when flying."
I wish this article were meant as satire, but I don't think it is.
I find the article repugnant; it glorifies selfishness.
'How to apply [rule #1] to your own life: Ignore "suggested donation" pleas at museums, always help yourself to more food and drinks at dinner parties and recline your seat all the way back when flying."'
I wish this article were meant as satire, but I don't think it is.
What a vapid article. Let's not medicalize being selfish. True sociopathy isn't something that can (or should, in my opinion) be emulated. Pretty low-brow pop psychology clickbait. But it got me, so I guess there's that.
Firstly: Yeah, you should be aware of what things cost and what benefit you get from them. Yeah, be prepared. And, yeah, think about the world in which you live and the other people you share it with. If you really want something, make a plan to get it. The words that describes these are "thoughtful" or "responsible," not "sociopathic." (Disrupting academic conferences and acting obnoxious on airplanes -- that's what we call "childish.")
What bothers me here, though, is that it feeds into this dipshit notion I keep running into that in order to be successful you have to be some kind of self-centered asshole. "Yeah, well Steve jobs would yell at people to their face when they said something he thought was stupid." Yeah, well for every asshole Steve Jobs, there are a million assholes no one wants to have anything to do with.
This woman, for example: she sounds awful. I'm sure she thinks she's some awesome-sauce lion-tamer of the universe, wielding her wiles and "remarkably beautiful breasts" like a ninja and slicing her way through life. The people who have to deal with her on a regular basis probably see right through her, roll their eyes, and try to leave her out of their lives as much as possible because whenever they invite her to a dinner party she makes a huge annoying scene and then steals a bunch of food from the fridge.
Yeah, and it also feeds into a very narrow idea of what success means. If you're not naturally an asshole, then having the same life goals as an asshole is really fucking stupid. Most people would be better off adopting the goals of Mr Rogers than this sociopath - at least he lived a happy life and people loved him.
I tend to agree, although I find some of the advice in the article useful when taken from a perspective of trying to disrupt personally inhibiting patterns of thought (as opposed to demonstrating brazen disregard for others).
Another thing is that there is plenty of evidence that leadership through inspiration and good character, rather than coercion and sociopathic behavior, is effective. It was only yesterday that I ran across this pretty enthralling anecdote about how Elon Musk handled the second launch failure at SpaceX[0].
Your words echo my feelings about this trend of needing to be reckless and bloodthirsty (likely at the expense of others) in order to be successful. Perhaps many people these days are just too cynical to accept that compassion, persistence, and determination can yield success.
I don't accept this premise. True sociopaths are typically not "assholes", or someone you don't want to be around. I'd bet this woman is probably VERY charming.
Entirely possible. But part of my reaction is due to my not entirely buying that this woman is a "sociopath" and not just an "asshole." As noted elsewhere in this thread, sociopathy is weirdly trendy right now.
She's probably very charming, but on a very superficial level.
I've met many people like this, and some of my friends date women like this. They can be fun and exciting at first. But their charm usually wears off very quickly, once their personal motivations (i.e., a singular focus on their personal gain) becomes clear, and it transforms into something quite repellent.
The sociopath usually doesn't care once you catch onto them. They're already working new people, or focusing their attention on those who are easiest to manipulate.
What I took away from chasing post was a distast for articles like the linked that describe sociopathy more often in terms considered positive. Traits such as charming, compared to the negative traits such as anti-social, harder to form personal relationships, harder time learning from experience or the other negative traits often found attached to sociopathy in a dictionary.
I find this distast understandable because it leads to two or more populations that have desperate definitions of sociopathy and the resultant definition based arguments and disagreements.
This reminds me of a website with weird dating insights. In that women would categorize a man either as wimp, asshole or leader. ;-)
I guess people like Steve Jobs don't accomplish their leadership through people liking to follow but through intimidation. Both things can work, in particular if you are as successful as Steve Jobs but the former probably works better most of the times.
Why is it that when we are talking about a "functioning" psychopath, we use the term "sociopath" but reserve the word "psychopath" for "crazy guy who kills without remorse"? Sugar coating by using a term (that is generally not used in the research world) confuses the issue even more than it already is in the diagnostic criteria.
Hopefully we'll get some better diagnostic criteria in the future so that we can get away from these pop-culture articles that attribute "sociopathy" to everyone who just happens to be a dick.
I'm not sure about diagnostic criteria, but I thought those were just different words in plain English. A sociopath is calculated and in control without a conscience -- they know the rules and choose to actively subvert them. A psychopath is out of control and probably violent -- as in "psycho".
They are also technical words with specific meanings.
Unfortunately the words "psycho" & "psychopath" are close to "psychotic", but very different forms of illness. Most people with psychotic illnesses pose little or no risk to others.
This happens a lot with psychiatric terms. Addiction and *aholic are often used for "really liking something"; schizophrenic is a really nice word for 'in two minds' and a lousy word for the illness; and many examples.
If she wants that label (which has become really popular over the past few years), she can shop around until she finds a psychologist willing to give her the diagnosis she wants. Of course she pays them for their time. (Not to mention, antisocial behavior + narcicissm = not a stretch.)
It's not like her publisher or news organizations are going to show any skepticism.
Wow. I'm really not sure if I'm going to renew my economist subscription. Things like this make me wonder if the paper is dumbing itself down. I haven't been a reader for long enough to know, but I don't want to pay $100+ for a subscription if this kind of crap is what I'll be getting.
Don't let the quality of this (admittedly poor) article turn you off from the Economist as a whole. They tend to produce a wide variety of well-researched, insightful articles. They tend to have an opinion on nearly every article, but these are usually defended by data.
Subtle distinction, this is not an article in The Economist but a blog hosted on their site. I find the quality of the articles quite a bit better than their blogs.
This is an evolutionary dead-end. You want to be the OPPOSITE of a sociopath and learn to love, and give into people.
Read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "Never Eat Alone". This be selfish crap is both evil, and harmful to your social-standing, not to mention ineffective.
No one is an island, so reach out to people and give as much of yourself to others as you can. Give unconditionally and don't keep score. Empower and inform others, and seek out the same from people. Life is not a zero-sum game: whole of society is better for it when you help just one person.
I like being alone a lot, though. Not all the time, just a significant portion of my time. It's not that I'm scared, anxious, depressed or a sociopathic asshole, I'm just passionate about a lot of things that don't involve other people. I agree with almost everything you said, except "give as much of yourself to others as you can". Change it to "give as much of yourself to others as you feel like" and I'll buy it.
Sociopaths exploit inefficiencies in the social landscape by subverting or ignoring norms. On the one hand, sociopaths are easy to hate because of this; they cut in line, lie when it suits them, cheat on their spouses, etc. But on the other hand, they are sometimes easy to admire precisely because they ignore the little "glue" rules that keep polite society humming along so nicely. They are rebels in that regard.
Steve Jobs is the perfect example. Steve was a classic sociopath. He would show up to important meetings in jean shorts and prop his dirty, bare feet up on the table. He exploited a loophole in California law that allowed him to drive without license plates. He was regularly abusive to his employees, not out of malice, but to achieve his personal goals related to perfection and execution. It's perfectly justified to both revile and admire him.
Let me add a slightly different perspective & pose some questions...
First, fully agree with the sentiment of the other commenters. I think the article glorifies and glamorizes behavior that shouldn't be encouraged and is, as someone put it, evolutionarily disadvantageous (game theory at play - see Dawkins / The Selfish Gene, etc. ;)
The best thing I got out of the article, though, is actually the behavior descriptions and character identification. We should be all be aware that there are sociopaths out there and be cognizant of the damage they can cause to our start-ups and personal lives.
I recently (and, thankfully briefly) dated a woman who fits the description and behavior patterns frighteningly to a T. Not a laywer, but a someone pretty deeply embedded in Silicon Valley. Charming, witty, but emotionless and hugely self-aggrandizing (among other of the noted behaviors...)
I'm sure people like that can be found in all parts of society, but part of me wonders whether there's a part of the tech / Silicon Valley culture that attracts sociopaths -- lots of awkward nerds susceptible to charm overload, easy access to a mouthpiece and validation feedback loop through Twitter ("I have 50k followers - I'm clearly a huge deal"), an entrepreneurial culture that gives leeway to potentially hand-wavey careers ("I'm starting a company"), etc.
So some questions - what do we do with with the "high functioning" sociopaths that we come across? What's their place? Are they to be shunned? Are they to be acknowledged & "noted" (i.e. as warning signs) but otherwise left in place? What if you find you've hired one? What if you find you're living with one? Etc.
Surely the article glorifies it somehow, on the other hand it's a contrast to many articles that I read in the past about it. After all I think even nerdish behaviour, becoming widely accepted at the moment, has its sociopathic elements. Seeing some things more rationally and less emotionally...
So given that a sociapath is smart enough, and that your evolutionary argument is correct, "high functioning sociapaths" should effectively behave social. He just uses different brain regions to accomplish the same goal I guess.
Whenever this topic comes up, I'm confused as to how commenters railing against sociopaths for breaking social rules reconcile that idea against the reality that the collective (government) that sets these rules also routinely breaks these rules (see treatment of Snowden).
If the rules are not consistent, why so obsessively stand up for them?
83 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 176 ms ] threadIf this is taken to extreme, it's actually very bad. Leaders who don't care for their followers cause a lot of anguish. And how will polite society fare if nobody cares how anyone else feels? So if society needs 90% of people to be self conscious and follow norms, are they all the suckers?
Yes, this is called being a sociopath.
The article could be rewritten with one sentence: "don't be naive".
Yes, on the ground that it has no objective definition. Anyone can be assigned the label based on the right choice of anecdotes.
It will be interesting to see how neuroscience deals with such labels, as more objective causes for human behavior are matched up with effects, over the coming decades as psychological interpretations are finally set aside.
It has a precise psychiatric definition, based on the results of a particular psychometric assessment (PCL-R). Whether this qualifies as "objective" to satisfy a CS/math practitioner, I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
> It has a precise psychiatric definition ...
Surely you are aware that "psychiatric definition" is a contradiction in terms? That the DSM consists entirely of lists of symptoms, and no causes, which allows a great deal of latitude in diagnosis?
> Whether this qualifies as "objective", I'm not sure, but it does have a well defined set of criteria.
Perhaps you should read the controversy surrounding the just-released DSM-5, in which new conditions were added by -- clinical research? -- no, by people voting in secret. The outcome was so embarrassing that the director of the NIMH has reluctantly decided to abandon the DSM as a source for science (it will remain as a diagnostic guide).
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2013/transforming-dia...
A quote: "While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity ... Patients with mental disorders deserve better."
Also, read the history of Asperger Syndrome -- once believed to be a rare condition, then its inclusion in DSM-IV resulted in an epidemic of false diagnoses, then reluctantly removed from DSM-5.
Your comments suggest that different qualified practitioners can use the DSM to arrive as the same diagnosis, given the same symptom set. But this has never been true and is not true now. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist
There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed. Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases. A person who scores a 0 or a "perfect 40" on the PCL is a pretty clear diagnosis.
Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI. See, for example, the article about Dr Kent Kiehl in the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...
If psychology were a science, there would be precisely one catalog of mental conditions, not as many as there are people who care to publish their own list. And the catalog would list causes as well as effects, something famously absent in modern psychological practice.
> There are definitely imperfections in the way psychiatric disorders are defined and diagnosed
Imperfections? Psychiatrists and psychologists famously and consistently cannot agree on diagnoses, when confronted by the same subjects. The reason is that no one knows what causes these conditions, which makes psychological clinical practice an exercise in symptomatic relief.
> Most of the difficulties happen in the edge cases.
Asperger Syndrome was removed from DSM-5 because all the cases were edge cases -- the diagnosis had no objective validity whatsoever. This pattern is true for many similar conditions. Tom Widiger, who served as head of research for DSM-IV, says "There are lots of studies which show that clinicians diagnose most of their patients with one particular disorder and really don't systematically assess for other disorders. They have a bias in reference to the disorder that they are especially interested in treating and believe that most of their patients have."
> Interestingly, the signature of sociopathy (aka psychopathy) appears to have an organic basis - it can be observed via functional MRI.
If the work were more advanced (if it were anything more than a correlation), we might consider removing sociopathy from the domain of psychology and give it to neuroscience. But we won't get away with that -- psychologists are notoriously protective of their turf.
Also, the "signature" to which you refer is a correlation, not a cause-effect relationship, it isn't definitive and it doesn't identify a source for the condition.
And finally, present evidence suggests that all serious mental conditions are ultimately organic, so describing them as having an organic basis is sort of self-evident.
It has been extensively studied in part because it's such an insidious personality disorder that many high-functioning people have to varying degrees, and the depth of psychological research on the topic very quickly shows how wrong mjfl's comments are. There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
The cause of that condition we informally call "sociopathy" won't be uncovered by psychiatry or psychology. For that, we need neuroscience. And to date neuroscience isn't ready to shoulder the load.
> There is definitely a flippant, pop-psych use of the word 'sociopath', but it doesn't really shed much light on the actual phenomenon.
The absence of science in psychiatry and psychology should prevent anyone from seriously arguing that any imaginable use of the word "sociopath" is morally or ethically wrong. This may change in the future, but at the moment, such terms have no objective definition.
1. Disregard unspoken rules, but not the small ones like not donating at the museum, think more rules like "you just can't enter this industry", "you can't just schedule a meeting with that CEO". Those can have an immense ROI, while the petty ones may get you a punch to the face.
2. You should also live in the best place possible for your budget - negotiate down to the last dollar, but not for some shi%%y apartment in some shi%%y ghetto.
3. Rule 3 seems accurate - if you can't do it on your own, take some drugs :-).
4. A few prepared anecdotes is short sighted - you should learn human psychology and the art of social manipulation for the best results.
5. Or get them from the inside - blend in, build up support, then announce your true intentions (aka the dictator way).
Not sure if this is a good example. I've unsuccessfully proposed meetings with someone above me from a different department. Maybe I should've created Outlook invitations? ;)
Also, since you've been rejected, why not start your own rejection therapy - http://www.entresting.com/blog/100-days-of-rejection-therapy...
> http://www.entresting.com/blog/100-days-of-rejection-therapy...
Yeah I know it, saw some Videos of it. Just awesome, one should really apply that stuff in Business life
She has no incentive not to lie (moral guilt) and all the incentive to embellish (profit).
To give an example, I personally don't say prepared anecdotes and eat extra food at parties. I have fun at parties and engage people in enjoyable conversations. When I meet new people I'm warm and friendly and I make an effort to form genuine connections. As a consequence, people like me and I have close friends who love me and enjoy my company. You can't look at all the fun and laughter and human warmth I have in my life and tell me I should trade it all in for some snack food and a more calculated image. That is completely stupid. Only someone who cannot enjoy human company should think like that, and those people should be pitied not admired.
> How to apply [rule #1 ]to your own life: Ignore "suggested donation" pleas at museums, always help yourself to more food and drinks at dinner parties and recline your seat all the way back when flying."
I wish this article were meant as satire, but I don't think it is.
'How to apply [rule #1] to your own life: Ignore "suggested donation" pleas at museums, always help yourself to more food and drinks at dinner parties and recline your seat all the way back when flying."'
I wish this article were meant as satire, but I don't think it is.
Firstly: Yeah, you should be aware of what things cost and what benefit you get from them. Yeah, be prepared. And, yeah, think about the world in which you live and the other people you share it with. If you really want something, make a plan to get it. The words that describes these are "thoughtful" or "responsible," not "sociopathic." (Disrupting academic conferences and acting obnoxious on airplanes -- that's what we call "childish.")
What bothers me here, though, is that it feeds into this dipshit notion I keep running into that in order to be successful you have to be some kind of self-centered asshole. "Yeah, well Steve jobs would yell at people to their face when they said something he thought was stupid." Yeah, well for every asshole Steve Jobs, there are a million assholes no one wants to have anything to do with.
This woman, for example: she sounds awful. I'm sure she thinks she's some awesome-sauce lion-tamer of the universe, wielding her wiles and "remarkably beautiful breasts" like a ninja and slicing her way through life. The people who have to deal with her on a regular basis probably see right through her, roll their eyes, and try to leave her out of their lives as much as possible because whenever they invite her to a dinner party she makes a huge annoying scene and then steals a bunch of food from the fridge.
Another thing is that there is plenty of evidence that leadership through inspiration and good character, rather than coercion and sociopathic behavior, is effective. It was only yesterday that I ran across this pretty enthralling anecdote about how Elon Musk handled the second launch failure at SpaceX[0].
Your words echo my feelings about this trend of needing to be reckless and bloodthirsty (likely at the expense of others) in order to be successful. Perhaps many people these days are just too cynical to accept that compassion, persistence, and determination can yield success.
[0]http://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-work-with-Elon-Musk
This is the first time I've visited Quora, though I've seen it mentioned here before. People actually use this abomination? Yikes.
I've met many people like this, and some of my friends date women like this. They can be fun and exciting at first. But their charm usually wears off very quickly, once their personal motivations (i.e., a singular focus on their personal gain) becomes clear, and it transforms into something quite repellent.
The sociopath usually doesn't care once you catch onto them. They're already working new people, or focusing their attention on those who are easiest to manipulate.
I find this distast understandable because it leads to two or more populations that have desperate definitions of sociopathy and the resultant definition based arguments and disagreements.
The state of the peer-reviewed literature on this topic is a pathetic shambles. At this point in time, there isn't a "true" sociopath.
I guess people like Steve Jobs don't accomplish their leadership through people liking to follow but through intimidation. Both things can work, in particular if you are as successful as Steve Jobs but the former probably works better most of the times.
Hopefully we'll get some better diagnostic criteria in the future so that we can get away from these pop-culture articles that attribute "sociopathy" to everyone who just happens to be a dick.
Unfortunately the words "psycho" & "psychopath" are close to "psychotic", but very different forms of illness. Most people with psychotic illnesses pose little or no risk to others.
This happens a lot with psychiatric terms. Addiction and *aholic are often used for "really liking something"; schizophrenic is a really nice word for 'in two minds' and a lousy word for the illness; and many examples.
If she wants that label (which has become really popular over the past few years), she can shop around until she finds a psychologist willing to give her the diagnosis she wants. Of course she pays them for their time. (Not to mention, antisocial behavior + narcicissm = not a stretch.)
It's not like her publisher or news organizations are going to show any skepticism.
Read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" and "Never Eat Alone". This be selfish crap is both evil, and harmful to your social-standing, not to mention ineffective.
No one is an island, so reach out to people and give as much of yourself to others as you can. Give unconditionally and don't keep score. Empower and inform others, and seek out the same from people. Life is not a zero-sum game: whole of society is better for it when you help just one person.
Now _that_ is evil.
But Ayn Rand said that enforced altruism is the root of evil!
Steve Jobs is the perfect example. Steve was a classic sociopath. He would show up to important meetings in jean shorts and prop his dirty, bare feet up on the table. He exploited a loophole in California law that allowed him to drive without license plates. He was regularly abusive to his employees, not out of malice, but to achieve his personal goals related to perfection and execution. It's perfectly justified to both revile and admire him.
First, fully agree with the sentiment of the other commenters. I think the article glorifies and glamorizes behavior that shouldn't be encouraged and is, as someone put it, evolutionarily disadvantageous (game theory at play - see Dawkins / The Selfish Gene, etc. ;)
The best thing I got out of the article, though, is actually the behavior descriptions and character identification. We should be all be aware that there are sociopaths out there and be cognizant of the damage they can cause to our start-ups and personal lives.
I recently (and, thankfully briefly) dated a woman who fits the description and behavior patterns frighteningly to a T. Not a laywer, but a someone pretty deeply embedded in Silicon Valley. Charming, witty, but emotionless and hugely self-aggrandizing (among other of the noted behaviors...)
I'm sure people like that can be found in all parts of society, but part of me wonders whether there's a part of the tech / Silicon Valley culture that attracts sociopaths -- lots of awkward nerds susceptible to charm overload, easy access to a mouthpiece and validation feedback loop through Twitter ("I have 50k followers - I'm clearly a huge deal"), an entrepreneurial culture that gives leeway to potentially hand-wavey careers ("I'm starting a company"), etc.
So some questions - what do we do with with the "high functioning" sociopaths that we come across? What's their place? Are they to be shunned? Are they to be acknowledged & "noted" (i.e. as warning signs) but otherwise left in place? What if you find you've hired one? What if you find you're living with one? Etc.
Curious to hear thoughts and opinions...
So given that a sociapath is smart enough, and that your evolutionary argument is correct, "high functioning sociapaths" should effectively behave social. He just uses different brain regions to accomplish the same goal I guess.
The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry @ http://www.amazon.ca/The-Psychopath-Test-Journey-Industry/dp...
Confessions of a Sociopath: A Life Spent Hiding in Plain Sight @ http://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Sociopath-Spent-Hiding-Plai...
I highly recommend both of these, since they are a very interesting read.
If the rules are not consistent, why so obsessively stand up for them?