
On the trail of the elusive successful psychopath - gwern
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=27&editionID=289&ArticleID=2542
======
otakucode
How on earth could you find it challenging to find a successful psychopath?
Have you never heard of Goldman Sachs?

Or what about the guy who ran Sunbeam into the ground? He is actively a self-
avowed psychopath obsessed with predatory behavior.

~~~
delluminatus
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".

------
PhantomGremlin
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.

~~~
chmike
Madoff is not what we could call a _successful_ psychopath.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
I disagree. Here's Wikipedia:[1]

    
    
       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.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff)

~~~
chmike
I meant a person with psychopathic traits but who didn't harm (screw) anybody.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
In my best Emily Litella voice: "Oh, that's different. Never mind!"

------
pasbesoin
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.

------
zoba
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.

~~~
yuna
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.

~~~
kazinator
> _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.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Usually when normal people like something...

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.

~~~
lomnakkus
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.

~~~
chmike
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.

------
to3m
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.

------
wellboy
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.

~~~
wavefunction
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.

~~~
yuna
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".

~~~
wavefunction
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!!!!

