This came up tangentially in another thread and the poster linked to this really interesting article which made wonder if it isn’t necessary that certain pathologies in general and these in particular be present in some small percentage of the population.
I’m not intimately familiar with the DSM so before anyone calls me out on this, I don’t think that either of the things I listed are bona fide pathologies, but according to Wikipedia at least, the term psychopathy is sufficiently well defined that it is used in the criminal justice system as well as for other purposes.
That I think comes pretty close to the colloquial usage anyway.
I’m not sure I have a strong opinion on this either way so I’ll be interested in seeing the arguments each way, assuming there is any interest in the topic. But if not, consider the fact that recent revelations regarding losses hidden by JP Morgan may make a quote from the aforementioned article prescient.
The “Psychopath Test” stuff doesn’t strike me as credible. But if the question is “do we need serial killers and global financial crises,” I am going to say no.
The powerful in society love psychopaths/sociopaths when they are useful, war for instance.
I saw a theory somewhere that autistic spectrum individuals may survive certain events better in a hunter gatherer lifestyle.
But no society doesn’t NEED anything, but the traits have survived so they obviously confer some advantage. Maybe the better question is does a certain percentage of psychopaths/sociopaths actually improve human society?
It’s not that simple. People assume that just because someone lacks empathy or the ability to understand the reasons behind the rules that govern society that they can’t live within them. I think if we look no further than this message board we can see that isn’t necessarily the case. How often have there been posters who have managed to live within the rules but have no comprehension whatsoever of the spirit behind those rules? Now just apply that to the broader society.
And the article cited actually meshes well with other things I have read that indicate a disproportionate percentage of top corp execs tend to evince sociopathic, narcissistic, etc., tendencies. Unfortunately that was before I started using Evernote so I can’t easily locate those sources. The point being that people with those characteristics obviously have some value to our society on some level.
I think the assumption that these so-called “Corporate psychopaths” are psychopaths in the sense that a psychiatrist would identify them is light on the evidence, to put it mildly. We’re very quick to label people that we’ve never met based on the caricatures that we see on TV or read about in our Psych 101 classes. These sorts of conditions are actually kind of rare. The fact that we’re talking about this so casually, as though we’re really qualified to identify psychopaths, is troubling to me.
Psychopathy sure just looks like all of the worst possible traits bundled together, when you show it like that.
What a useless term. Anyone can be described as having almost all of those symptoms. Yes, even you. Just ask anyone who doesn’t like you. I know everyone I don’t like fits those criteria to a tee.
Someone may have almost all of those markers and still not be a sociopath – even when people who know them think they are. Most people do have feelings of empathy
A sociopath is quite different from a narcissist. Although narcissists do feel that everything is about them, they aren’t just out and out indifferent to others. And, in my own opinion, narcissists aren’t aware that they are different from others. I think that a lot of sociopaths know exactly what they are.
Sorry for the double post, but I should hasten to add that it’s not like we’re arguing about ghosts or extraterrestrials here. It makes perfect sense that some roles will be perfectly suited to this personality type.
That’s a problem with clinical psychology in general, but the fact of the matter is that there are statistically verifiable measures for a lot of characteristics. To what extent that applies in this context, I’m not qualified to say, but given the fact that it is often a criteria for determining such things as the proper application of the criminal justice system, I’m willing to bet the shrinks have a pretty good handle on it.
I might as well step into the fray and say that narcissists should be ineligible to enter any profession in which they have supervisory roles over others. IMO, narcissists shouldn’t even be allowed to live: if you have no empathy for other people, you’re not emotionally Human anyway, and ought to be put down like a rabid dog. These people - and I use that term so loosely - should not never be allowed to ever be a position of power over others. * Ever*. Yes, I got fucked over by a narcissist and I’m still bitter about it.
Before Evernote I used a web clipping service now called Pocket and I just did a search of the downloaded cache. If anyone really believes that psychopathy isn’t a real phenomenon with actual neurological roots, you may want to peruse the following link.
Now the study was focused exclusively on violent criminals, but I think we can all recognize the fact that as with most personality traits, they tend to lie along a continuum.
Honesty: I hope that this thread doesn’t in anyway diminish the potential destructiveness of these and many other aberrant personality types. It certainly should not.
Our obsession with the psychopath is adoration of the guy who will cut through all our civilized “red tape” to achieve an end. It’s just adolescent wish-fulfillment where you can pretend that a Tarantino script or a Reagan speech might work in real life.
Unfortunately we have real life examples, where that B-roll silliness never works.
Just finishing up reading “The Psychopath Test” by Jon Ronson. Easy and entertaining read. The guy has a good conversational style of writing. But enlightening, fact filled and conclusive on the subject?.. Not so much.
Author meets Bob Hare. The recognized authority on psychopathology and the guy responsible for coming up with the Psychopath Check List (PCL) that is used to identify psychopaths by training psychiatrists. Then author goes around meeting interesting people who he things fit the mould and interviews them. Like I said, entertaining read.
Conclusion: With 20 listed characteristics on the PCL, it’s really easy to self identify as a psychopath. More importantly, to the average person armed with the PCL list, it’s not hard to identify psychopaths everywhere you look without even leaving the comfort of your home, e.g. Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Dick Chaney, Steve Jobs, Lance Armstrong… the list can go on and on.
What does it all add up to? Nothing except that there are people who are driven by goals and ideals that often make them look callous and narcissistic. Does that make them psychopaths? Maybe. Is that always a bad thing? Not necessarily. Just makes the rest of us feel better about ourselves when we can point to the a-holes and take them down a peg or two because they are not nice guys, like the rest of us, who’d never be so egotistical given half the chance. Right?
Oh, and to answer the OP… do we need them?.. Nope. But it seems we’re stuck with them and some do appear to make their share of contributions to society.
Psychopathy has as one of its symptoms a high level of promiscuity. So psychopaths would be adept at spreading their genes even if they are detrimental to society at large, the same way a rapidly spreading virus can spread in your body despite being a threat to the body it depends on for survival.
Pathologies may just be an exaggerated version of a useful attribute the way that sickle cell is an exaggerated version of a mutation that made people more resistant to malaria in Africa.
I don’t know what psychopathy would be an exaggeration of, but I think schizophrenia is an exaggeration of traits that lead o either intelligence or creativity.
True psychopaths generally don’t feel either empathy or anxiety. Their emotions are pretty barren. This could make them helpful in some situations (military situations) but realistically a psychopath isn’t going to be cooperate or obedient enough to make a good soldier. They have too little commitment to the group and would just end up stealing from and conning their teammates.
I like the analogy between psychopath/sociopaths and viruses, because I suspect the group has done wAAAAAAY more harm than good to human society. We just aren’t equipped to recognize how dangerous and harmful they are … we don’t have a “frame” for thinking about them that lets us recognize that. Hell, we’ve only just begun to recognize that there’s a problem.
In my opinion, we don’t necessarily need to wipe sociopaths out (pyschopaths may be a different matter) but we do need to understand who and what they are and how to see that they are beneficial to the rest of us, and not harmful. Entrusting sociopaths with power and responsibility over other human beings is a very dangerous thing, but we do it all the time now in the business world. Maybe we should rethink that!
Unfortunately the development of such a frame will be greatly hindered by the sociopaths themselves, and by their dupes (because that’s all you can ever be to someone who is a sociopath – a dupe) who will fight it tooth and nail. And the people who say that sociopathology is just another name for “people I don’t like”? Dupes. Or sociopaths.
I’m not sure what your point is John. Are you saying that evolutionary traits that are not advantageous but confer no disadvantage can survive, or what?
I think the general tone of this thread is working from the assumption that empathy and good social give and take is the “correct” starting point for humans and deviations are a problem. I think we need to toss out all preconceived notions and work from that standpoint.
From the perspective of survival of the community, I think I would rather have a person low on the empathy scale (I think) as the leader if we were in competition with other groups. Someone willing to do whatever it takes to survive. If that means killing all of the competition so we can live, great. I’m certainly not the person that would make that kind of decision.