I've been curious if there has been examples of psychopaths working together, presumably because it would be more optimal. Also, I'm pretty curious if/how they can identify each other.
I have struggled (yes, struggled) with psychopathic traits for most of my life. Maybe I can provide some insight.
It's hard for psychopaths work together because they don't see the value of people beyond being a means to an end. If you want an example: I would have no mental qualms with killing my friends or family if there were a tangible benefit and no repercussions. Thankfully for everyone, there are repercussions, and there should be.
The problem is that a psychopath will screw you over when it's advantageous for them to do so; history, bonds, an even what most people would consider "morality" don't really factor in. Everything is just a reasoned calculation.
Two psychopaths working together would require some sort of framework keeping the two from screwing each other over when the opportunity arises. In practice that's really hard to accomplish
As for how you can identify a psychopath. If you could readily identify me as a psychopath you see how that would be a problem in my relationships. Nonetheless I'm certain I have brushed up against one or two. Although I liked them as people, we never clicked because were obsessed with our own domains. I appreciated how no-nonsense they were about the world and didn't let emotions affect their judgements, but I also had no interest in their schemes (though I did respect them) when I had my own schemes to worry about.
If I ever marry, I don't think it will be with another psychopath.
> I would have no mental qualms with killing my friends
What is the definition of "friends" that you're using? Presumably, people who think they are your friends, because they don't know.
> Although I liked them as people ...
... you would still have killed them if there were no repercussions, and some tangible benefit. Hmm, what is the working definition of "like" here?
Usually when normal people like something, a big element of what that means is wishing for its preservation.
Also, how can you say "like them as people" if you don't see the value of people beyond being a means to an end? By this reasoning, your use of "like ... as people" should be synonymous with "like ... as means to and end". In that case why use the term "as people".
The ordinary meaning of to "like someone as a person" is quite opposite to seeing them as a means to an end.
I think it's important to recognize that the human mind is quite good at maintaining multiple contradictory beliefs. It's certainly possible to "like someone as a person", see them as a means to an end, and still be willing to murder them, even at the same time.
Although this kind of compartmentalization might seem illogical -- well, it is illogical -- it's also a powerful coping mechanism.
Yeah, that's the problem right there. You're thinking "normal", and the GP said he struggled with psychopathy. Your "normal" doesn't apply in his world.
Psychopaths don't "struggle" with psychopathy -- they either a) lack the introspection to realize that they're psychopaths, or b) just don't care. That's part and parcel of being a psychopath.
I'll grant the OP "pyschopathic traits", but the rest of his/her post seems to try to support full-blown "psychopathy" rather than just "psychopathic traits". The post might be suggestive of extreme narcissim and/or attention-seeking behavior, but a real diagnosis of psychopathy would require a lot of other traits as well -- and would require an extensive (verifiable) history. See Hare's checklist.
I must disagree. First there are different level of psychopathy making it a fuzzy set. Second I have heard of people diagnosed as psychopaths and indeed struggling to remain socially adequate in order to avoid to be caged in psychiatric hospitals. In this way cold logic is used as leverage to induce socially compatible behaviour.
If you think about it, if you want to do a startup, you basically have to become a psychopath, because you constantly have to tell yourself that everyone who is getting a job is doing it wrong, which is 99% of people, you have to be willing to lose everything, not be afraid of anything and you have to push yourself out of the comfort zone all the time.
But I think it boils down to what the core of a person is. If you are just a normal person that can emulate the behavioural patters of a psychopath, then you are a normal person.
If you are a psychopath at your core, because that's how you were born and you can emulate the behavioural patterns of a normal person, you are a psychopath.
While I can imagine that there are some of the latter category that start a startup,I think you need to be of the first category to make it through the entire startup grind.
You really don't have to become a psychopath to start a company. Many people do it all the time while going to school, raising a family, working other jobs... Now they may just be opening up a restaurant or dry cleaner rather than a high-tech CRUD mobile app which makes their "startup" less sexy than one run by Ivy Leaguers who swear by not-sleeping, setting dogs on fire for fun and mainlining Thai crank as their secret to success.
Those people advocating for crazy off-the-wall "one weird secret" cargo-cult schemes succeeded in spite of themselves, and not because of.
So really, becoming a psychopath is probably the last thing any aspiring business person should become. It won't help you balance the books. It won't bring in new business. And it won't help form and maintain lasting personal relationships that are the real secret to business success.
Not that I agree with the grandparent's sweeping statements about psychopaths, but your comment also makes a sweeping statement that "becoming a psychopath is probably the last thing any aspiring business person should become". No evidence is provided in either case.
It's also pretty insulting to both psychologists and psychopaths alike that you think a psychopath is just something you decide one day to become.
It's also jarring that in one paragraph you bash crazy "one weird secrets" to success, when in the next paragraph you claim that the one weird secret to success is "personal relationships".
My response was tongue-in-cheek because the original supposition that someone should become/becomes a psychopath while finding success with a startup is so ludicrous.
You've made a number of unsupported suppositions about my intentions, how frightful!
I forgot where I was though, when I posted that bit of dry humor. Self-important "founders" or at least "founder wannabes" is super serious guys!!!!
I'm not advocating in any way that college students should try to become psychopaths in order to start a startup, however, I don't think there is value in excluding a correlation between psychopatic behaviour and building a huge company.
In fact, I think the founder of the largest companies we have to day are pretty insane and not in a good way. I think this helps bringing to the company to traction, but like Ron Conway was saying in the "How to start a startup"-lecture today about fundraising, what he found most impressive about the AirBnb founders is that the bigger their company becomes, the more mature they become, but also the more humble.
I think that's the mix of crazy and humility you need to build the most successful companies.
Becoming a psychopath is not possible. I mean a true psychopath. The initial point made is however pertinent.
In some particular context, like military or startups, the psychopathic traits may seam an advantage. So why don't we see more psychopaths in those fields ?
This question has caught the attention of many scientists, hence the interest in finding successful psychopaths.
One answer regarding startups could be that empathy with user experience could be an advantage. At some point one also need empathy with employees. Fear is also an advantage because one should better be paranoid to anticipate dangers and avoid them. Soon or later a fearless person would wet it's match.
> If you think about it, if you want to do a startup, you basically have to become a psychopath
No you don't.
> because you constantly have to tell yourself that everyone who is getting a job is doing it wrong, which is 99% of people, you have to be willing to lose everything, not be afraid of anything and you have to push yourself out of the comfort zone all the time.
That's not what a psychopath is so doing them doesn't make you psychopath. Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?
Apparently he thinks the definition of psychopath is akin to 'nonconformist'? I don't know, but I found his comment very strange just as you did... Nothing he described has any relationship to psychopathy.
The byline - "On the trail of the successful psychopath Sarah Francis Smith, Ashley Watts and Scott Lilienfeld" - is a good, short example of the importance of punctuation.
Yeah, psychopaths are everywhere. Why don't they just interview <someone I dislike>?
/s
Seriously though, what is the point of this comment? Surely you already know that they are talking about rigorous, publishable research, not just "Goldman Sachs are evil lol".
If I didn't respect their privacy, I could point you to one right now.
In fact, figuring this out was a source of significant enlightenment for me. (Thanks, Internet!)
I wouldn't describe them as an unqualified success, but they are very good at getting what they want -- and leaving the rest behind.
I can't imagine that they (speaking generally) are that unusual.
Separate from my own experience, and I haven't read it yet, but a relative has recommended the book, People of the Lie. I don't know whether their experience was with a psychopath, but the title grabbed my attention.
I've some responses about multiple posts, so rather than comment individually I'm making a general comment.
First, I also think it's simple to find "a successful psychopath". Take the case of one Bernard Lawrence Madoff. Let's look at some criteria from the article:
charm --- yes, clearly charmed people into "investing"
with him, "charmed" his way into being the chairman
of NASDAQ
dishonesty --- yes, c.f. 150 year jail sentence
lack of remorse --- I've never read of any on his part,
have you?
lack of empathy --- yes, otherwise how can you steal
so many people's life savings?
poor forethought --- yes, the scheme was so simplistic,
so harebrained that the SEC ignored warnings, probably
because no rational person would believe it!
Second, as for "examples of psychopaths working together", isn't that pretty much the definition of "organized crime"? Most of their schemes are very simplistic, they certainly lack empathy for their victims, etc.
Finally, I think it's too restrictive to limit the discussion to "rigorous, publishable research". How can you rigorously investigate 99% of these people? That's not possible. E.g. in Madoff's case his pathology was easily identifiable in hindsight, but researchers aren't just wandering around looking for businessmen to study. And certainly most "criminal masterminds" (gotta love that phrase) won't allow themselves to be contemporaneously "researched". Tony Soprano was the fictional counterexample, which is a big reason why that show was so charming.
So "rigorous" research is pretty much limited to dead or uncooperative people. And if that's the case, just how "rigorous" is it? How do you understand Madoff's psyche without his cooperation? And yet he's clearly a psychopath. And clearly successful, seeing as he pulled it off for not years but decades.
federal investigators believe the fraud began as early as the
mid-1980s and may have begun as far back as the 1970s
...
The amount missing from client accounts, including
fabricated gains, was almost $65 billion
Bernie could have been conning people for over 30 years, and he was in his 70s when it ended. If that's not "successful", then you
must agree that no Ponzi scheme can ever be successful. (Even Social Security will eventually collapse).
If I were in Bernie's shoes, I think what would pain me the most is that both of my sons were dead, and that one died as a result of the Ponzi scheme (and was it really suicide?). But then again, if Bernie is really the psychopath I think he is, he might not really care about even his own children.
26 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 71.3 ms ] threadIt's hard for psychopaths work together because they don't see the value of people beyond being a means to an end. If you want an example: I would have no mental qualms with killing my friends or family if there were a tangible benefit and no repercussions. Thankfully for everyone, there are repercussions, and there should be.
The problem is that a psychopath will screw you over when it's advantageous for them to do so; history, bonds, an even what most people would consider "morality" don't really factor in. Everything is just a reasoned calculation.
Two psychopaths working together would require some sort of framework keeping the two from screwing each other over when the opportunity arises. In practice that's really hard to accomplish
As for how you can identify a psychopath. If you could readily identify me as a psychopath you see how that would be a problem in my relationships. Nonetheless I'm certain I have brushed up against one or two. Although I liked them as people, we never clicked because were obsessed with our own domains. I appreciated how no-nonsense they were about the world and didn't let emotions affect their judgements, but I also had no interest in their schemes (though I did respect them) when I had my own schemes to worry about.
If I ever marry, I don't think it will be with another psychopath.
What is the definition of "friends" that you're using? Presumably, people who think they are your friends, because they don't know.
> Although I liked them as people ...
... you would still have killed them if there were no repercussions, and some tangible benefit. Hmm, what is the working definition of "like" here?
Usually when normal people like something, a big element of what that means is wishing for its preservation.
Also, how can you say "like them as people" if you don't see the value of people beyond being a means to an end? By this reasoning, your use of "like ... as people" should be synonymous with "like ... as means to and end". In that case why use the term "as people".
The ordinary meaning of to "like someone as a person" is quite opposite to seeing them as a means to an end.
Although this kind of compartmentalization might seem illogical -- well, it is illogical -- it's also a powerful coping mechanism.
Yeah, that's the problem right there. You're thinking "normal", and the GP said he struggled with psychopathy. Your "normal" doesn't apply in his world.
I'll grant the OP "pyschopathic traits", but the rest of his/her post seems to try to support full-blown "psychopathy" rather than just "psychopathic traits". The post might be suggestive of extreme narcissim and/or attention-seeking behavior, but a real diagnosis of psychopathy would require a lot of other traits as well -- and would require an extensive (verifiable) history. See Hare's checklist.
A sociopath does not feel kinship and AFAIK they view themselves as predators. Another sociopath is more of competition and a potential threat.
But I think it boils down to what the core of a person is. If you are just a normal person that can emulate the behavioural patters of a psychopath, then you are a normal person.
If you are a psychopath at your core, because that's how you were born and you can emulate the behavioural patterns of a normal person, you are a psychopath.
While I can imagine that there are some of the latter category that start a startup,I think you need to be of the first category to make it through the entire startup grind.
Those people advocating for crazy off-the-wall "one weird secret" cargo-cult schemes succeeded in spite of themselves, and not because of.
So really, becoming a psychopath is probably the last thing any aspiring business person should become. It won't help you balance the books. It won't bring in new business. And it won't help form and maintain lasting personal relationships that are the real secret to business success.
It's also pretty insulting to both psychologists and psychopaths alike that you think a psychopath is just something you decide one day to become.
It's also jarring that in one paragraph you bash crazy "one weird secrets" to success, when in the next paragraph you claim that the one weird secret to success is "personal relationships".
You've made a number of unsupported suppositions about my intentions, how frightful!
I forgot where I was though, when I posted that bit of dry humor. Self-important "founders" or at least "founder wannabes" is super serious guys!!!!
I think if you ask people who built a startup if they sometimes felt like a psychopath, I think many of them will not say no.
Some quick googling also gave a lot of articles, such as that even HN readers are more psychopathic than the average internet users. http://blog.statwing.com/starting-a-company-can-turn-you-int....
I'm not advocating in any way that college students should try to become psychopaths in order to start a startup, however, I don't think there is value in excluding a correlation between psychopatic behaviour and building a huge company.
In fact, I think the founder of the largest companies we have to day are pretty insane and not in a good way. I think this helps bringing to the company to traction, but like Ron Conway was saying in the "How to start a startup"-lecture today about fundraising, what he found most impressive about the AirBnb founders is that the bigger their company becomes, the more mature they become, but also the more humble.
I think that's the mix of crazy and humility you need to build the most successful companies.
In some particular context, like military or startups, the psychopathic traits may seam an advantage. So why don't we see more psychopaths in those fields ?
This question has caught the attention of many scientists, hence the interest in finding successful psychopaths.
One answer regarding startups could be that empathy with user experience could be an advantage. At some point one also need empathy with employees. Fear is also an advantage because one should better be paranoid to anticipate dangers and avoid them. Soon or later a fearless person would wet it's match.
No you don't.
> because you constantly have to tell yourself that everyone who is getting a job is doing it wrong, which is 99% of people, you have to be willing to lose everything, not be afraid of anything and you have to push yourself out of the comfort zone all the time.
That's not what a psychopath is so doing them doesn't make you psychopath. Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?
Or what about the guy who ran Sunbeam into the ground? He is actively a self-avowed psychopath obsessed with predatory behavior.
/s
Seriously though, what is the point of this comment? Surely you already know that they are talking about rigorous, publishable research, not just "Goldman Sachs are evil lol".
In fact, figuring this out was a source of significant enlightenment for me. (Thanks, Internet!)
I wouldn't describe them as an unqualified success, but they are very good at getting what they want -- and leaving the rest behind.
I can't imagine that they (speaking generally) are that unusual.
Separate from my own experience, and I haven't read it yet, but a relative has recommended the book, People of the Lie. I don't know whether their experience was with a psychopath, but the title grabbed my attention.
First, I also think it's simple to find "a successful psychopath". Take the case of one Bernard Lawrence Madoff. Let's look at some criteria from the article:
Second, as for "examples of psychopaths working together", isn't that pretty much the definition of "organized crime"? Most of their schemes are very simplistic, they certainly lack empathy for their victims, etc.Finally, I think it's too restrictive to limit the discussion to "rigorous, publishable research". How can you rigorously investigate 99% of these people? That's not possible. E.g. in Madoff's case his pathology was easily identifiable in hindsight, but researchers aren't just wandering around looking for businessmen to study. And certainly most "criminal masterminds" (gotta love that phrase) won't allow themselves to be contemporaneously "researched". Tony Soprano was the fictional counterexample, which is a big reason why that show was so charming.
So "rigorous" research is pretty much limited to dead or uncooperative people. And if that's the case, just how "rigorous" is it? How do you understand Madoff's psyche without his cooperation? And yet he's clearly a psychopath. And clearly successful, seeing as he pulled it off for not years but decades.
If I were in Bernie's shoes, I think what would pain me the most is that both of my sons were dead, and that one died as a result of the Ponzi scheme (and was it really suicide?). But then again, if Bernie is really the psychopath I think he is, he might not really care about even his own children.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff