
Letter From A Psychopath - mannjani
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/dh5l3q?share
======
Pompky
I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people who
hopelessly, endlessly intellectualize and play mind games because there is no
depth to them. It is only mind machinations without the depth and nuance of a
fully feeling and emotionally alive human being. I had psychopathic parents
and studied psychopathy as a PhD criminal forensic psycholovist encountering
many serial killers, cons and the like. Why do they do what they do? It is no
great mystery as I used to think. They dismember people psychologically and
physically for the simple reason that they enjoy it. They derive pleasure from
the destruction of victims to their power dominance orientation. They are
boring stupid people who ate not the least bit interesting. They are pathetic.
They choose people smaller and weaker than them that they can pick them off
out of the herd of humanity. They are sad expressions of the human genome and
dont deserve near the hype and fascination they get. Once you figure them out,
it is very easy to remain quite detached from their mental gyrations to seduce
and ensnare. It becomes annoying actually. I for one am over it. I do
recommend that you not allow one at your hearth or into your bed. You will pay
dearly. One cannot allow emotional involvement or any attachment to such
people as a regular person is want to do with other humann beings. Get rid of
them, they will destroy your mind, spirit and your life. Take it from one who
knows from a very young age.

~~~
VladimirGolovin
> _I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people._

I met at least two. Both were extremely vivid people, and deeper contact with
them, when they turn off their cloaking field, was baffling: it was a bit like
communicating with an alien.

In any case, these people were really, really far from being dull.

~~~
RivieraKid
How did you knoe they were psychopaths?

~~~
VladimirGolovin
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist),
and before that, a very strong gut feeling. Too many things click together:
the overall toxicity of a person, his desire to belittle / denigrate many
people around him (a waitress in a cafe, contributors to an internet community
project, a non-psychopath competitor etc.), his grandiose self-image (he
literally designated himself as 'elite'), threats of violence and criminal
leanings, always hogging the spotlight in social settings, "friendships" that
change to enmity overnight, et cetera et cetera.

------
kristofferR
Everybody should turn on showdead in the settings and check out losethos'
comments here. Psychopathy is really interesting and fascinating, but so is
schizophrenia.

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments
while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

~~~
vectorpush
Let's all prattle on about the guy as if he isn't an active member of this
forum. The man can read you know, most developers can. I'm not trying to
censor discussion but it just seems a little odd to publicly deconstruct this
guy in every mental health thread like he's some type of lab specimen. It is
indeed possible to read comments while hellbanned.

~~~
krapp
The relationship between this community and losethos seems very strange to me.
Perhaps because this is the first community i've been involved in where
hellbanning was a feature. Any other site would have banned him outright for
his own good but the hellban encourages him to continue posting. The result is
almost as if he's treated like a mascot, or some brilliant but obstinate child
being actively ignored at the adults table.

We know he's there, he surely knows he's hellbanned, and he knows we know he's
there. He's both the best and worst argument about hellbanning as an effective
form of moderation.

~~~
thaumaturgy
HN as a community exhibits a lot of sociopathic traits (which makes this whole
thread a little bit funny, but not funny-haha).

------
jseliger
If you're interested in what life for such a person is like (or if you might
be one!), check out M. E. Thomas's _Confessions of a Sociopath_. I wrote about
it here: [http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/summary-judgment-
co...](http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/summary-judgment-confessions-
of-a-sociopath-m-e-thomas/) and Tyler Cowen wrote about it here:
[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/con...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/confessions-
of-a-sociopath.html) and elsewhere.

FWIW, from what I've read
([http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all))
there were (at least) no therapies or treatments that reproducibly help
psychopaths:

 _The psychiatric profession wanted little to do with psychopathy, for several
reasons. For one thing, it was thought to be incurable. Not only did the
talking cure fail with psychopaths but several studies suggested that talk
therapy made the condition worse, by enabling psychopaths to practice the art
of manipulation. There were no valid instruments to measure the personality
traits that were commonly associated with the condition; researchers could
study only the psychopaths’ behavior, in most cases through their criminal
records._

And now there are, at least in the sense of reducing criminal behavior:

 _In a landmark 2006 study of a specialized talk-therapy treatment program,
conducted at a juvenile detention center in Wisconsin, involving a hundred and
forty-one young offenders who scored high on the youth version of the
checklist, Michael Caldwell, a psychologist at the treatment center and a
lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, reported that the youths
that were treated were much more likely to stay out of trouble, once they were
paroled, than the ones in the control group._

But note that the linked article is from 2008. Perhaps things have changed
since.

~~~
mcguire
You might also want to note that there are many different versions of
_[staying] out of trouble_.

~~~
prawks
Exactly what I thought. Especially given the above quote:

 _researchers could study only the psychopaths’ behavior, in most cases
through their criminal records_

It's a fascinating disorder, really, in that the most severe cases are
difficult to detect so long as they do not make mistakes.

~~~
sliverstorm
The most interesting part is how unlike a typical disorder it is. Your typical
disorder removes capability; psychopathy removes empathy, which can be seen as
a capability- but it could also be seen as a natural (well-intentioned)
limiter.

~~~
VladimirGolovin
It's quite possible that this is not a disorder, but a stable evolutionary
strategy.

~~~
scott_s
I don't think it is evolutionary stable. I think a society of sociopaths would
fall apart. We evolved to live in groups; we are social animals. Social
animals need empathy, otherwise they are unlikely to cooperate and live in
mutually beneficial ways.

~~~
dmoney
"Psychopath" could just be the degenerate form of the personality type that
evolved to lead those groups. In other words, a leader is a psychopath with
better impulse control.

------
psychosurvivor
I'm generally viewed as a "nice guy" but once when I was younger met a
psychopath who viewed my "niceness" as a weakness and took it upon himself to
destroy me. I retreated from that battle, but from then on learned to identify
such people and try to match wits with them. I'm very competitive and couldn't
stand losing to them. I out-witted several of them over the course of my life
and they would usually leave me alone when they knew I would fight back.
Fortunately, there are not a lot of true psychopaths running around. However,
I finally met my match recently later in life, in a former prison inmate who
ran had run his cell block, who had intelligence, charisma, and a breath-
taking ruthlessness. He had fooled everyone on his release that he was
reformed and had obtained employment where I worked. I did battle with him and
lost because I was not willing to go his lengths. Good does not always over
Evil, as we all know. I had to get as far away from him as I could. The
experience was traumatic in some ways, and I say all this to recommend you
avoid psychopaths whenever possible. It's not worth it. A true psychopath is
beyond redemption.

~~~
burgerBath
how do you spot a psychopath? what are the usual traits you looks for? How did
you do battle with former inmate?

~~~
psychosurvivor
With regards to the last guy, it was an experience unlike any other in my life

I transferred into his location so I was new. He took it upon himself to be my
friend and mentor. The first few months were fine. I go along with everyone
and did a good job. This was his information gathering phase. I'm an open
person so he learned a lot about me before the red flags went up.

He slowly began praising me, saying I was uniquely qualified for the job and
the other guys weren't doing it right. He and I would show them how it was
done. His charm and intelligence won me over and I was very flattered.

Simultaneously, he began turning everyone against me, making me dependent upon
him. Feeling isolated, I found myself drawn closer into his orbit. I began
suspecting him, but I found myself drawn like a moth to a flame to his
charisma, praise and intelligence.

He had all the people in positions of authority fooled, so they trusted him.
He began telling them without my knowledge that I wasn't very good at my job
but he would look out for me.

If I deviated from what he wanted, no matter how small, his punishment was
severe. I went to the authorities about this but they just shrugged their
shoulders.

When I realized what was going on and being a computer person (this was when I
was taking a break from a programming career), I managed to delve into the
computer system and show with facts how he was cheating and how I was actually
doing as well or better than the others. He responded by convincing them my
computer skills were dangerous. They restricted my access to the database. He
received a minor punishment because he was popular.

By cheating (and actually breaking the law in some cases) he managed to
receive outstanding performance reviews. When the big bosses came to town he
was recognized for his outstanding performance. He made sure to tell them I
was a basket case that he was trying to bring along.

I began asking around about him. I found out he always wore long sleeve shirts
to hide his prison tattoos. I foolishly thought I could fight him, so I found
other ways to bring his cheating to light. This went no where because the
other employees and management were afraid of him.

When he couldn't beat me outright, he enlisted a confederate to sabotage my
work. With my guard up, I became very adept at justifying my work and proving
I wasn't in the wrong.

I began noticing how he faked emotions. For example, he was essentially
humorless, but he could fake a laugh that when you thought about it, was
obviously fake and looked maniacal.

I became worn out, depressed and sick. I left the company. They all thought I
was a "nice guy" and said they liked me and I believe they meant it, but
thought it was to bad I wasn't up to the job. This was his end game, for the
simple fact that he liked the company to be short handed so he could collect
more over-time. I believe he actually liked me, but he liked the money more.

To answer your question: The psychopaths I've met are charming, intelligent,
popular with people in authority. They get a free pass that others get
punished for. You'll see how they cheat but never get in trouble for it and
notice how other people are afraid of them. They have a way of working their
way into control of any situation. They are very dominant, but in a charming
way. They are usually what is called the 'alpha male.'

~~~
steauengeglase
They aren't always charming and intelligent, sometimes they are repulsive and
brutal.

I'd say the big warning signs are cruelty, a repulsion of weakness while also
finding it irresistible, rapidly changing tactics (sometimes within seconds)
that shift between dominance and attempting to garner empathy that begin to
appear shallow after the first few salvos, highly manipulative to ends that
don't really matter, and always "clever".

~~~
psychosurvivor
I agree, but I immediately avoid the one's that exhibit negative traits. The
problematic ones for me are those that are charming and intelligent. I forgot
about the rapidly changing tactics within seconds. That's really astonishing
when you see it. I've never met a psychopathic woman. The couple crazy
girlfriends I've had were borderline personalities, which I found even more
difficult to deal with.

~~~
steauengeglase
There are plenty of female psychopaths out there. The difference is that women
are more socialized than men (hiding more obvious traits) and they seldom take
the macho (sometimes violent) route to feed their egos.

------
southpawgirl
Programmers (me included) are intrigued with psychopathy: we like the idea of
pure thought, unencumbered by guilt, untainted by emotions, conventions and
niceties. But paradoxically we overromanticise it in the process: I am pretty
sure that living day-to-day with such condition kinda sucks, and that it
seldom leads to notableness or notoriousness, let alone self-improvement or
any kind of refinement. A serial offender petty criminal is probably more
representative of the 'average' psychopath than the author of this post, I am
afraid.

~~~
theorique
If I understand correctly, the IQ distribution in psychopaths is not different
from the population as a whole.

So, the 130 IQ (+2 sigma) psychopaths are probably intelligent and self-aware
enough to hold their "evil" tendencies in check and to succeed.

On the flip, the 70 IQ (-2 sigma) psychopaths probably do not have the self-
insight to understand "why" they feel the way they do. Their impulse control
will be much smaller, and they are much more likely to indifferently hurt
people, commit crimes, and act on impulse.

~~~
southpawgirl
Quoting from Wikipedia: 'Additionally, studies suggest inverse relationships
between psychopathy and intelligence, including with regards to verbal IQ'
(but later it's stated that such correlation is not unanimously accepted).

I think we mostly are in agreement; I think the impulsive and antisocial
tendencies of the psychopath are often self defeating and only the very
intelligent navigate life successfully. We end up having a selection bias
because we are likely to cross paths only with the latter subtype, so we end
up believing that all psychopaths are superintelligent and verbally dazzling,
while probably the majority of them is badly dull.

------
tomstokes
Perhaps the most fascinating part of this letter is observing people's
reactions to it. In the letter, the author goes so far as to admit that s/he
is and always will be a psychopath without a sense of guilt or remorse toward
others and a keen ability to recognize and exploit weaknesses in others for
his/her own gain.

Judging by the comments here, the letter has done just that. One comment below
notes that "Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-
written piece I've read on the internet in a long time." Others are expressing
a desire to meet the author or expressing how they can identify with the
author. It's incredible to see just how effectively this letter resonates with
the people who read it.

Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the author was
able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to
make therapy work for himself in an effective manner. I don't want to downplay
his accomplishments. However, it is still interesting to dissect and observe
all of the persuasiveness of the letter and the fluidity with which the author
transforms psychopathy from a very difficult personality disorder into
somewhat of a super power that the reader can't help but envy by the end of
the letter.

As you read the letter and experience strong feelings of empathy for the
author, consider his own poignant words at the end: "In the end, psychopaths
need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others,
empathy."

The letter begins with the psychopath distancing himself from the traditional
destructive psychopathic traits in the most admirable and self-aggrandizing
way possible: He went against all odds and admitted himself into treatment,
where he claims the health agency had never seen someone of his nature walk-in
before and he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking
therapist to handle.

He continues by setting up various straw-man caricatures of psychopathy
("cartoon evil serial killers" and the CEO who prizes profits over people) and
knocking them down one-by-one, leaving the reader feeling guilty of possibly
embracing those stereotypes at one point. With the reader feeling a bit
guilty, empathetic, and as if the author's condition is simply misunderstood,
the author has set the stage to rebuild the reader's view of psychopathy in a
way that benefits the author.

Toward the end, he even goes so far as to put words in the reader's mouth just
so he can turn around and undermine the very caricature of a psychopath he
suggested you might hold : "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."

The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author
wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a
lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning." He goes on
to say that he "enjoy[s] a reputation of being someone of intense
understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct." At this point,
the author has completely distanced his psychopathy from the purely negative
caricature he painted in the first half of his letter. Who wouldn't be envious
of such incredible, valuable, and morally-neutral abilities as he described
them?

I've read the letter several times over, and I'm still amazed at how effective
it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the
author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a
great struggle. And it's true that overcoming your own objections to seek, and
stick with, treatment for such a severe personality disorder is both
impressive and admirable. His points about the general public's
misunderstanding of true psychopathy are equally true, although he crucially
omits any and all explanations of how psychopathy can _actually_ be dangerous
and destructive to others. It's an incredible piece of writing, and incredibly
persuasive and manipulative in a way that I'm sure PR and marketing teams
everywhere would be jealous of.

~~~
undoware
I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in
an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go.

If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are
themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you,
then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/
and you'd never know the difference.

Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century:
crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You
shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Generalizing, there's always a reason why someone's supposed perfidy makes
them an untrustworthy speaker, and that's a problem.

One floor down, what's going on is 'begging the question' \-- not in the
colloquial motivates-the-question sense, but in the sense that you are
assuming what you set out to prove (circular reasoning).

Watch:

CLAIM = C is a psychopath; therefore, don't trust him when he says C is good.

CLAIM' = X is a Y; therefore, don't believe X's claim that Z.

But there's still an implicit claim hiding! In fact, it's the value of Z.
Let's suss it out:

CLAIM'' = X is a Y; Ys are untrustworthy; therefore, don't believe X when X
says that Ys are trustworthy.

There you have it: a textbook case of circular reasoning. That's the sort of
thing C is talking about: people get so emotional when they think about
psychopaths, they fail to hold themselves up to the same standards for
rational discourse at which a psychopath ironically excels.

~~~
DanBC
> If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are
> themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you,
> then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to
> name/ and you'd never know the difference. Don't believe me? Try
> substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers,
> pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust
> what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a
convincing liar.

~~~
undoware
So is being any sort of successful criminal. A pedophile, for example.

~~~
Arnor
I still have no idea what you're trying to say. I don't have an abundance of
trust for psychopaths, pedophiles, or crack dealers. I've worked very closely
with psychopaths (one was also a pedophile) in an institutional setting in the
past. I had to assume that every interaction was a manipulation. Even being
extremely careful, it was easy to get caught from time to time particularly
when I was understaffed (i.e. 1 staff to 3 clients).

Reading the top parent of this thread was very interesting because he was
thinking in exactly the way I had been conditioned to think at that time in my
life.

When a person in your life lies to you or manipulates you, you will certainly
begin to question the value of other interactions from that person. Once you
have confirmed that the person has a personality type that makes them
particularly likely to lie or manipulate (compulsive liars, psychopaths,
criminals, what have you), you must be careful about your interpretation of
any communication. But here's the real difficulty: If a psychopath is trying
to manipulate you and knows that you are conscious of it, the manipulations
morph. They adapt to your particular defense. In the institutional setting,
they're in it for the long haul so they don't mind missing a couple times. In
fact, getting caught is often part of the manipulation.

I wandered off my initial topic here so I better wrap it up.

~~~
cdash
Everyone lies and manipulates you, not just psychopaths.

~~~
Arnor
Very true. Still, when you are aware of a particular propensity for
manipulation, it is prudent to tread carefully.

------
squigs25
Many of the best venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have psycopath-like
tendencies.

Think about the similarities. A good entrepreneur/venture capitalist should
be:

-Ruthless, selfish, unsympathetic

-Capable of manipulating, good at acting, great at selling a concept and convincing others to drink the kool-aid

-Unfazed by negative outcomes

-Unaware of (or at least, unfazed by) social norms and the status quo

-Creative, capable of thinking radically differently than everyone else

I've seen this comparison a few times, and now I can't seem to find any of the
articles that I have read.

~~~
gelutu
Psychopaths are devious not creative.

~~~
squigs25
I guess I consider those traits to be one and the same at their root, one just
has a negative tone.

In my mind, everyone who is devious is creative, but not the other way around.

------
6d0debc071
... Am I the only one who interprets this letter as an attempted sympathy
exploit/attack on people being properly on guard against psychopaths?

~~~
javanix
I think the interesting thing is how it is literally impossible to judge his
sincerity.

For all we know, he could have given us a 100% spot-on description of
psychopathy, or he could be lying through his teeth - without experiencing his
life, we have no way of knowing the difference.

I suppose this is possible for /any/ self-description of the internal state of
a human mind, but this particular condition obviously muddies the water to an
extreme degree.

~~~
yannk
You assume the author is a male.

------
pathtopsyche
I come from a rather unstable and violent corner of the world, and I've met
plenty of psychopaths growing up. I have a hypothesis that early childhood
traumas and violent environment can trigger the development of psychopathic
tendencies, but I'm not entirely sure how much role does genetics play in this
process.

Some of the commenters on this topic seem to ascribe superhuman rationality
and brainpower to psychopaths. I don't think that's a correct way to look at
it. They can be very smart, but they suffer from the same set of biases and
blind spots and Dunning-Kruger type of phenomena as other people. I think the
defining characteristic is the complete lack of empathy and the willingness
and ability to manipulate people (practicing the skill from early childhood,
hence very good at it).

I was just looking up one of the smartest and most pronounced psychopaths I've
met in recent years. Apparently he got his MBA and started an offshore private
equity fund, seems to be doing well for himself. The guy had monumental talent
for manipulating people. I wonder how far will he go before people catch on to
his true nature...

------
dfraser992
Sociopaths are one of the fundamental threats facing humanity today. Such
traits may have been beneficial in times past as group conflict was so
prevalent, but if global issues like getting into space, climate change and
the prevention of economic chaos are to be dealt with effectively, humanity is
going to have to learn how to cooperate more effectively. And that means
preventing sociopaths from getting into positions of power.

Unfortunately, society does not seem to have yet evolved the mechanisms to
deal with these parasites effectively. The law is hardly a useful tool, given
how "flexible" and corrupt it is, and how money aka power is so important in
manipulation of the law versus "truth". Economists aka amateur sociopaths are
finally beginning to realize an obvious truth - that most humans are not
rational actors strictly concerned with profit and loss but that decisions are
based on emotion much more than they'd like to admit and so this has a
significant effect on economic behavior.

All this does matter because ask yourself - what of the effects these people
have on the lives of those they exploit? what sort of setbacks do the good
people end up facing and how much of a drain is it on their lives and their
efforts to -contribute- to society as a whole? I see so much waste because of
the unnecessary chaos the sociopathic introduce to society as a whole. They
are a threat and capital punishment is a logical response, because they can
not be rehabilitated. But given how society is organized, rich white people
are never going to be executed, or even prosecuted, for their crimes unless
they're so egregious they can't be ignored.

Even then, the case of Jimmy Savile (in the UK) is an example of how humanity
still is little nothing more than talking chimpanzees who respond more to and
are controlled by instinctual behavior patterns versus the ability to cogitate
like "we" think we are able to. Jimmy was a sociopath, everyone knew he was a
pedo, but nothing was done because no one wanted to speak up because of the
social cost. Things are better these days, of course, so maybe in another 100
years, there will be a test toddlers are given to track whether they are
likely to be sociopathic, and more effort will be put into preventing the
development of such evil monsters. It is like the Head Start program in the
States - prevent issues down the road by ensuring children have the best
psychological foundation established as early as possible.

~~~
Havoc
Well good luck with your witch hunt.

~~~
dfraser992
Why is the global witch hunt against terrorists (excuse me, Muslims)
acceptable, but bringing people like the bankers at HSBC, who enabled drug
lords and the like for over a decade, not? HSBC's actions were far more
detrimental to society than any terrorist attack, yet no one will ever be
punished for their actions - not anyone involved in the crash of 2008. Both
are clearly wrong, but given how hypocritical Western society actually is, it
is obvious one can get away with anything as long as you're part of the upper
echelons / in group. And abstract stuff like financial crimes are not so
emotionally tinged as concrete crimes, like murder. And federal prosecutors
are lazy sociopaths who haven't got the stomach to prosecute powerful people
anymore...

This probably explains why people get more conservative as they get older -
they see how screwed up the world is and retreating into pseudo-
authoritarianism makes sense, emotionally. But conservative values these days
are just cover for the authoritarians. I guess I am complaining about the
fundamental lack of integrity of Western society that is so obvious anymore.
On that note, I just picked up "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" which looks like
a good read.

------
b1daly
I've sometimes wondered if the presence of psychopaths in powerful
organizations leads to sociopathic behavior on the organizations part, even
though most members are "normal." I'm thinking of situations like the
outlandish behaviors of major investment banks defrauding their customers,
knowingly selling them "toxic" mortgage back securities.

A small population of actors, inclined to gain power, and ruthless in conduct
forces all members of the community to act in concert, lest they be cast out
entirely.

This might also explain the disconnect of an organization like the NSA, made
up of mostly decent, sincere people, engagin in profoundly anti-social, if not
downright illegal, activities.

------
JonSkeptic
>It is also the case that, being 'normal' takes a degree of energy and
conscious thought that is instinctive for most, but to me is a significant
expenditure of energy. I think it analogous to speaking a second language.

Sounds about right. I thought it was pretty 'normal' to feel this way
sometimes...

~~~
LaGrange
There’s an old psychiatric joke: there are no healthy people, they’re just not
diagnosed yet.

I’m not a psychopath, but I have high levels of social anxiety and probably
high functional Aspergers. Every situation I didn’t rehearse in my head is
incredibly exhausting, and even then, if it gets too complex I feel the urge
to withdraw — and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a jerk coworker being a jerk
or someone I like dropping a compliment bomb on me, or even, if I’m not the
best shape, a partner being affectionate.

We override our deficiencies, but it’s tiring.

~~~
Carlee
I had a teacher who worked in a psych ward. She insisted that everyone has a
trait of each mental issue you could name - you just don't get a diagnose
until it's a big enough issue for the person.

~~~
mcguire
Of course. The difference between "personality trait" and diagnosable illness
is whether or not it causes you or others significant problems. There is no
difference in _kind_ , only in degree.

------
wlmeldmanfloch
I find that it is hard to distinguish between psycopathy and narcissism. This
person seems like a pathological narcissist not a psychopath. This person is
ego tripping by self identifying with something they find powerful. A
psychopath may have similar hangups but they don't believe in their own
bullshit and would not waste time with self reflection or therapy. Psycopathy
is like depression; psycopaths do crazy shit because they can't feel.

------
yurgeni
>psychopaths hate weakness they will attempt to conceal anything that might
present as a vulnerability [...] ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others,
and to exploit it

There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what
constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

For example, compulsively manipulating other people is more properly regarded
as a _weakness_ , I think. Whereas getting up on a stage and being open and
vulnerable in front of a crowd, that's _strength_. It can inspire people and
produce lasting change.

People with heavy streaks of psychopathy, or narcissism, or whatnot, are on a
different path to the rest of us. It's better to avoid them where possible,
tempting though it is to hope they will eventually acknowledge their faults
and apologise. However, not having access to various feelings is going to
create straightforward problems in their lives which can in principle lead to
private acknowledgement and progress being sought. So I refuse to regard them
as incurable cases

~~~
wrongc0ntinent
>There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what
constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

This here is the crux of the matter, and we only stand to lose if we go on
with all the hyperbole and analogies around psychopathy. The value and
consistency of what constitutes "weak" and "strong" depends to a large extent
on the feedback we (and "they") get in everyday interaction (whether they live
in a city or grow up around Baloo the bear). Burying psychopathy down to some
exclusive and immutable genetic level is to ignore this (I'm not talking about
causes here, but about behavior reinforcement and motivation).

~~~
yurgeni
Yes. Another reason I think we can call sociopathy a weakness is that, as with
all evil, the actors are thoroughly deceived about their own motives. This
makes them especially maddening to those who catch on and falsely assume that
they could make a straightforward choice to behave differently

------
zafiro17
Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-written piece
I've read on the internet in a long time. Imagine what things are capable when
"being different" causes you - and enables you - to reflect deeply and
thoughtfully on what being normal really means.

------
ctdonath
"the director of the agency finally took me on herself, and to our mutual
surprise we got along extremely well."

Birds of a feather?

~~~
livingparadox
That was my thought, actually.

~~~
baq
more like forged letter.

------
JulianRaphael
I have a very pragmatic view that psychopathic traits are just one specific
set of algorithms of the many possible sets of algorithms our personalities
can exhibit to connect and interact with other personalities or more generally
speaking our environment. Looking at the state of the world, at least a subset
of these behavioral algorithms seems to be quite efficient (as the letter
shows) and various subsets/traits seem to be very common and even desirable.
Obviously the manifestation of the overall set which you would define as
"psychopathy" varies from psychopath to psychopath, hence the image of the
"cartoon evil serial killers", the "CEO" and many more in between these two. I
guess in the end it depends on the balance of influence between three factors:
the other sets of algorithms which make up your personality, the personalities
you interact with and your environment.

I personally think we should look into what we can learn from this set of
behavioral algorithms (the good, the bad and the ugly) and how you can balance
it to leverage its benefits while not suffering from its drawbacks. That's at
least how I deal with it.

------
trendoid
Brilliantly articulated. I think this might be useful for everyone :

"The test of their self-superiority is their ability to rapidly find
weaknesses in others, and to exploit it to its fullest potential.

But that is not to say that this aspect of a psychopaths world view cannot be
modified. These days I see weaknesses and vulnerabilities as simple facts - a
facet of the human condition and the frailties and imperfections inheritent in
being human."

------
Pompky
I have extensive experience w psychopaths. They have almost destroyed my life
given my vulnerability to them because of a mother who is a psychopath and a
father who had major psychopathictraits. I had to seek nurturance from a snake
and learn how to feed it and placate it while trying to stay alive.

------
Fuxy
Interesting.

I would like to meet this person.

I find it very helpful to surround myself with people that have a different
way of seeing the world.

~~~
sillysaurus2
_I would like to meet this person._

No, no no no no. No you would not. Not unless you mean it like "I'd like to
meet a serial killer, just for the experience." Maybe it'd be interesting to
get their point of view, sure, but you are far better off without them in your
life. And certainly without having any form of relationship with them.

One of the main reasons this guy wrote this letter was probably self-
aggrandization. The very fact that you find him more interesting is exactly
what he wanted. That's not inherently a bad thing.

What's inherently a bad thing is that when human remorse and guilt have been
genetically disabled, those people will do things to you which are fucked up.
I have experienced the blunt, raw force of their emotional carpet bombing
firsthand from a certain family member.

Everyone needs to remember that these people are hardwired to be deliberately
manipulative, because they feel good only when you're giving them attention.
Then they feel good only when you're doing things they've conned you into
believing you want to do; sometimes things you'll feel shitty about for the
rest of your life, once you snap out of it and realize you've been a puppet.

~~~
beaker52
Love is the kindest and most valuable thing we can spread in this world and
your reply offered none to this individual. He is no less deserving than any
other. We all have the same life sentence.

We're all trying to do our thing, he, you and I included.

More love, less hate. Please.

~~~
sillysaurus2
This is actually the central reason I was so torn up over my experience, and
one of the reasons the whole thing sometimes still haunts me. Because the only
possible way out of my situation was to completely cut ties, and shut off the
love. I'm a loving person and it absolutely tore me up for a long time.
Eventually I came to terms with the fact that if I wanted to lead a life
without torment, it was a necessary evil. These people will stop at nothing
until you're twisted around their pinkie finger, and they will prey on your
forgiving nature.

It's why I'm trying to call attention to how dangerous they are. But words
aren't adequate to convey the breadth and magnitude of their ability to carve
out chunks of your life for their own purposes. They'll take all your love and
steamroll you in return.

~~~
Fuxy
You're personalty can't handle a psychopath mine can.

I'm not loving nor forgiving and although I do poses empathy and remorse can
contentiously suppers it.

Everything has to be earned with me.

This applies to everybody including my own parents.

I grew up around manipulative people i know how to deal with them. I actually
instinctively distance myself from them.

I'm not saying I would be his friend but i find his point of view valuable as
long as he doesn't try it with me. I would notice if he did.

~~~
LaGrange
"You're personalty can't handle a psychopath mine can.”

You actually come off like someone who claims that they had grown up around
airplane pilots and therefore can handle gravity. It’s actually unlikely you
can.

"I would notice if he did.”

I’m just going to call that posturing.

~~~
Fuxy
More like i was born on a planet so i can handle gravity.

The only thing i meant by that is that he/she is the sweet, loving, sensitive
type nothing wrong with that but may not be well suited for some things.

I on the other hand am fascinated by psychology and love surrounding myself
with different types of people even psychopaths.

Everybody has to offer a unique way of looking at things.

Some may consider that crazy, maybe it is.

I don't fall under any definition of normal that's for sure but normal is
boring anyway.

~~~
LaGrange
Actually, that's a pretty common, normal line of thinking, often summarized as
"those things happen to the _other_ people". Even the declared love of
psychology is quite usual, as is the dismissal of "normal".

Sweet/loving/sensitive type dismissal shows a huge disconnect. People hurt
that way include soldiers, astronauts, public performers, politicians,
enterpreneurs and many others. You're not really looking into people, you're
romanticizing the diseases they have, and that really comes off as patronizing
in most cases, and in this case as reckless _and_ patronizing.

------
Yhippa
At one point in our evolution was there some advantage that being a psychopath
conferred?

~~~
simonh
Purely as a matter of opinion, the way to think about this is not as an
advantage for an individual, but for as a gene pool.

Mostly a human gene pool's survival and prosperity is best served by community
co-operation, mutual support and self sacrifice for the good of loved ones and
other community members. Sometimes though, the group as a whole has had it and
the route to the survival of any of the gene pool is for one or a few to
sacrifice the rest and make an all-out bid for personal survival. E.g. a
terrible winter in which there is insufficient food and everyone is starving
to death.

Another situation where psychopathy could be useful is warfare. Sometimes
having a cold blooded killer with no remorse on your side isn't such a bad
thing.

Ultimately, it's a matter of variety. You never know what challenges your
community is going to face, and what range of behaviors are going to be
optimal. Having a full range of behavior types available in your community
gives it flexibility in it's response, especially to to existential
challenges.

~~~
berntb
I'm not going to rule out that psychopathy can have been a good thing in some
society roles, but they do look more like shirking parasites? (An evolved
strategy that is turned on sometimes, depending on environment.)

[Edit: Afaik, psychopathy is not turned on after someone reaches adulthood. An
evolved strategy for catastrophes would be turned on at e.g. hunger or
stress.]

I especially wonder if warfare is a good example? Most of the time when humans
evolved we were in a clan society. Clan warriors aren't generally known for
live and let live-attitudes to people from outside their clan anyway; a
psychopath would probably not stand out much in blood thirst. (And if you are
in a war party, you really really need to trust the members in the party.
Manipulative people would not last long when they were caught at it.)

~~~
Synthetase
Historically, soldiers have generally been reluctant to use their weapons.
During WWII, around 20% of soldiers actually fired their weapons in combat.
Even fewer shot to kill often aiming over the heads of the enemy. This is a
form of posturing both to the enemy and their comrades. Through extensive use
of conditioning, that rate and lethality of fire was raised during Vietnam and
subsequent wars.

Even among tribal societies, warfare is highly ritualized in a manner that
does not optimize for maximum lethality. Richard Gabriel, in studies on tribal
societies in New Guinea have noted that hunts occurred with accurate
feathered. Tellingly, tribal warfare employed featherless arrows. Similarly
"counting coup" among American Indians involves touching rather than killing
the enemy.

Cold blooded killers have their uses for society, especially in warfare. An
excellent book on this subject is On Killing.

~~~
berntb
The point was, with the attitude to strangers in clan warfare (not modern
post-clan societies), psychopaths have nothing to add regarding ruthlessness.
See old Scandinavia.

For stylized cattle raids (e.g. historical Ireland, before the vikings) among
old neighbors, there will of course be agreed levels below extermination (or
the neighbours will be gone long before western contact).

~~~
maxerickson
It can just be an unfortunate synthesis of advantageous traits.

Detachment is pretty clearly a (potentially) useful trait for a leader. Same
thing for stuff like charisma.

------
socrates1998
Interesting read, but about half-way through I realized he could be
manipulating me into thinking he was decent person, just misunderstood.

Anyways, it is scary to realize that there are lots of powerful people out
there like this.

Actually, I think there are many powerful CEO's and political leaders that are
psychopaths.

How else could they convince people to give them the power, money, and
influence they have?

------
2mur
Interesting article on a clear psychopath:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html)

------
easyfrag
Jon Ronson's audiobook version of The Psychopath Test is the Daily Deal today
on Audible.com for 2.95

~~~
BaconJuice
Do you have it? if so do you recommend it?

~~~
dmuino
I've listened to this audiobook and I was hooked very early in the story. Jon
Ronson is a very good story teller and he narrates his book. He's quite funny
and engaging. "A Journey Through the Madness Industry" is the subtitle, and
"journey" is indeed a very adequate description of what you'll experience with
this book. Jon wanders from place to place where he'll meet psychopaths and
people who work in the "madness industry" and relates his experiences and
thinking.

It's not a definitive treatise on psychopathy, just the adventures of the
author as he dives into this fascinating world. Definitely worth getting it at
this price.

------
abhididdigi
This is a very good article. Thanks for this.

This explains - What makes a difference, if someone diverts their energy doing
something Positive. As they say - It's not who you are, but what you do that
defines you.

>Serial Killers & Ruthless CEOs exist - Voldemort does not.

Excellent ending to a great article.

~~~
mcguire
Does it enhance or detract from the article that Voldemort may be the one
writing it?

------
anovikov
The more i read about phychopaths is that they are normal guys/girls and it is
the society's problem to 'treat' them (because they are too strong competitors
and shall be neutralized) rater than their own.

~~~
jerf
If that were true, we'd all simply be psychopaths, the genes would have long
since won. There are important reasons why humans are empathetic, have guilt,
concern for others, etc. It is unlikely that psychopaths could ever form a
civilization on their own, for instance; one could make a utilitarian argument
in favor of behaving the proper way, but without the shortcut of having your
brain simply _wired_ to work that way it's going to be an uphill battle.

(Which goes back to one of my drums I beat here with some frequency, which is
that while the rationality of humans is often overstated, so is their _ir_
rationality... many putatively irrational things like "guilt" or "empathy" in
fact exist for reasons, or if you prefer, have significantly more positive
effects when considered holistically than a naive analysis might indicate.)

~~~
TausAmmer
Take stick and poke anthill so it gets rebuilt.

------
ashleypea
Who here is aware of the fact Oskar schindler was a psychopath? He sold all
his business and fortune to save hundreds of lives. All we hear is psychopaths
who fit the stereotype, not those who do not. Cognitive dissonance.

------
aagha
Given the number of people here who say have have met or interacted w/ a
psychopath, one would think that every other person out there is one.

------
richardlblair
Amazing and fascinating. His state of consciousness is so very different from
ours. It is _his_ reality. I'm so happy he shared this.

------
mzs
"I hope that it can remain confidential for the time being, seeing as it is
quite personal."

Dang who is the one exploiting weakness here?

------
brickcap
Great read. Thanks for sharing.

------
BaconJuice
Can someone paste it on gist? Work proxy is blocking the site =/

~~~
itry
Honestly? This is a question on _hacker_ news? There are millions of ways to
access a site via another site. W3C validator comes to mind. Or
textmirror.net. Or browsershots.org. Or the Google cache. Or or or...

~~~
ceejayoz
How is asking someone to paste it any less of a solution than any of those?

~~~
fredsted
They would be able to view it instantly instead of waiting for people to
bother posting it on Pastebin

~~~
wpietri
For the first person. For some subsequent people, it'll be faster because they
can avoid discovering it's blocked.

~~~
fredsted
Then there might also be more comments so it would take longer to find it,
might as well just copy the link and paste it into a proxy.

------
michaelwww
Can two psychopaths fall in love with each other?

~~~
jbeja
Yes!

~~~
michaelwww
Leopold and Loeb? How about Bonnie and Clyde? Probably both couples.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb)

------
dantium
Are psychopaths ticklish?

------
dave_sid
I think I've come in to the wrong forum. I thought this was HN.

~~~
dave_sid
Can't believe this story is at the top of the front page. Shame. Shame on you.

~~~
theorique
Because the inner workings of different human minds are not of interest to
hackers.

Why shame?

~~~
RamiK
Shame might be too hard, but I agree with OP. It's a general human interest
piece that has little place in a dedicated technical news forum.

Mind you, I feel similarly about most NSA submissions and while I would very
much like to have a dedicated mews aggregator \ Groklaw'esque blog-forum
dedicated to the NSA\Snowden revelations, I don't try making HN into one.

~~~
dave_sid
Thanks for backing me up a little. I seem to have lost karma points for
expressing my opinion also.

