
Increased numbers of psychopaths in senior managerial positions? - uladzislau
http://www.hud.ac.uk/news/2014/july/psychologygraduatesdissertationacceptedbyacademicjournal.php
======
dang
This post was killed by user flags.

------
kelukelugames
"To test her ideas, Carolyn assembled 50 participants, mostly from among
students, who underwent a series of tests."

Sensationalist title that fits a narrative people want to believe.

~~~
greggarious
I agree it's sensationalist:

"Not only was she awarded an exceptionally high mark of 85 per cent"

In most PhD programs (at least in the USA), a B is the absolute minimum grade
you can get to receive credit for a course. An 85% on a major class project
would have basically been a "B for effort" \- you did SOMETHING, but it had
major flaws.

~~~
_blah
In the UK (in most cases) you don't get the same sort of dynamic range
compression in marking you seem to get in the US (though it is coming -
witness the A/A _/ A_* stuff at GCSE). It is fairly ridiculous for 85% to
represent 'you turned up'.

------
oldmanjay
The title might be more than a little sensationalist, since it's based on this
sentence

>It raises the possibility that large numbers of ruthless risk-takers are able
to conceal their level of psychopathy as they rise to key managerial posts.

which is a pretty good indication that the paper drew no such conclusion at
all.

------
snowwrestler
To diagnose a mental disorder, there must be impairments to normal living. A
person who is able to function constructively in society might have
tendencies, habits, leanings, personality traits, or whatever word you want to
use to describe the differences between people. But if they are functioning
and not in distress, by definition they do not have a disorder.

That does not stop people from using disorder names as shorthand. "OMG I'm so
OCD about checking that my back door is locked!" "I'm pretty Aspberger at
parties." Etc. But it's important to remember that these are a casual
shorthand, not actual diagnoses. People with actual Obsessive Compulsive
Disorder do not laugh about it; they are in deep distress about it.

So: while we can talk about psychopathic tendencies, or use "psychopath" as a
shorthand, people who operate normally or successfully over a long term in
business are likely not afflicted with a psychopathic disorder. They might be
ruthless, they might be hard headed, they might have lower empathy than
average. That doesn't necessarily mean they need to weeded out, excluded,
treated, etc.

The hard question is: at what point is not a normal and adaptive difference in
personality, vs. a disorder that must be weeded out? And who is in that
position to do so?

It's tempting to look at something like the 2008 financial meltdown and chalk
it up to a bunch of psychopathic banking CEOs. I think that's a bad idea for
two reasons.

First, it can inhibit a more detailed and nuanced understanding of the root
causes of problems. We run the risk of not addressing the real causes, stuff
blowing up again, and then just blaming it on psychopaths again. Cycle, cycle.

Second, it runs the risk of demonizing skills or personality traits that might
actually be valuable in business.

When you're making decisions by numbers, you might sometimes have to set aside
or reduce the emotional content of your decisions.

When leaders try to give people everything they ask for, they create
unsustainable systems, because there are not infinite resources in the world.
And things change; innovation eats old products and business models. And then
when the system collapses into bankruptyc or mass layoffs, the leaders left
holding the bag are accused of making psychopathic decisions.

Whereas as less empathetic leader (or more disciplined, if you want to put a
positive spin on it) might have made more economically sustainable decisions
in the first place.

~~~
thenomad
_" People with actual Obsessive Compulsive Disorder do not laugh about it;
they are in deep distress about it."_

This is _extremely_ important. "OCD" has become a joke to many, but it's a
horrible, debilitating mental condition to those who actually suffer clinical
OCD.

Oddly enough, Cracked came out with one of the best articles I've seen
explaining why OCD is so very far from a laughing matter:
[http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-no-one-tells-you-
about-...](http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-no-one-tells-you-about-having-
ocd/)

------
baxterross
Is it not possible that there is a correlation between high IQ and better self
control? That explanation would fit the facts just as well as Carolyn's
without casting shade on massive groups of people for no reason.

~~~
bane
Also, sometimes when you end up in senior positions, you end up with
situations where there's no option but for somebody to be, for lack of a
better term, fucked over in the end.

It's not fun to be in those positions, but it happens, and having a stomach
for that kind of ugliness over the long run is what allows people to work in
those kinds of positions. That may select for psychopaths, or for people who
can overcome their emotional distaste, which can look superficially like
psychopathy I suppose.

------
carsongross
This article is pretty weak stuff, but we do appear to be increasingly
selecting for criminality across the board:

[http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(14)00077-4/abstr...](http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138\(14\)00077-4/abstract)

------
silentvoice
Did I read this right?

The thesis was: Psychopathy may be correlated with higher IQ.

Tests were done, except the psychopathic responses were recorded on the lower
IQ responders, not high IQ responders.

Conclusion: High IQ psychopaths faked their emotions to keep their cover -
thus confirming the thesis...???

------
kevincennis
Jon Ronson touched on this a bit in The Psychopath Test (worth reading if you
get a chance).

I was under the impression that there was already data supporting this.

~~~
DanBC
Personality disorders are controversial diagnoses that are difficult to make.

As this submission shows a lot of research is fucking hopeless.

I'd be very careful about drawing conclusions from a book, even very good
books like Jon Ronson's books, about psychopathy. The science isn't good; he's
not a scientist nor a science writer; etc.

Things are much easier if you want to substitute "assholes" for "person with
antisocial personality disorder", because you're not stigmatising mental
illness and you're not making shit up, you're just voicing an opinion on the
weird behaviours seen in some bosses.

~~~
kevincennis
Oh, for sure.

I took the book as "here's a light history of this diagnostic tool that's
almost certainly flawed AND misapplied, plus some interesting anecdotes". It's
obviously not, like, a _science_ book.

------
sp332
What about non-managers? Maybe there are just more psychopaths in general.

~~~
obilgic
more compared to past. probably not compared to non-managers.

