HE WAS a natural leader, creative, energetic and ambitious. "Mike" had appeared to be the ideal recruit for a fast-growing electronics company. It was only after he got the job that certain less favourable aspects of his behaviour came to light. He couldn't get along with his secretary, he "forgot" to take on less interesting projects, he bullied colleagues and walked out of meetings. But since he'd already complained about his boss to senior management, his boss's concerns were never taken seriously, and the company even singled Mike out as a "high-potential employee".

Perhaps you know someone like Mike. Someone charming, yet aggressive; a manipulative boss who can't be bothered with paperwork; one who constantly switches allegiance as different people become useful. Mike embellished the truth on his application form, failed to document his expense claims and turned out, in the end, to be setting up his own business on ...

Psychopathy ( /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) was, until 1980, the term used for a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. The publication of DSM-III changed the name of this mental disorder to Antisocial Personality Disorder, and also broadened the diagnostic criteria considerably by shifting from clinical inferences to behavioral diagnostic criteria.[3] However, the DSM-V working party is recommending a revision of Antisocial Personality Disorder to include "Antisocial/Psychopathic Type", with the diagnostic criteria having a greater emphasis on character than on behavior.[4] The ICD-10 diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization also lacks psychopathy as a personality disorder, its 1992 manual including Dissocial (Antisocial) Personality Disorder, which encompasses amoral, antisocial, asocial, psychopathic, and sociopathic personalities.[5]

Despite being currently unused in diagnostic manuals, psychopathy and related terms such as psychopath are still widely used by mental health professionals and laymen alike. In particular, NATO has funded a series of Advanced Study Institutes on psychopathy, both before and after to the publication of DSM-III. Researcher Robert Hare has been a particular champion of the term; his Hare Psychopathy Checklist is the standard tool for differentiating between those with Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and the subset who are psychopaths. According to this scale, the prevalence of APD is two to three times that of psychopathy.[6]

According to Christopher J. Patrick in his Handbook of Psychopathy, clinicians generally believe that there is neither a cure nor any effective treatment for psychopathy; there are no medications that can instill empathy, while psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy only become more adept at manipulating others.[7] However, other researchers suggest that psychopaths may benefit as much as others from psychological treatment, at least in terms of effect on behavior.[8] According to Hare, the consensus among researchers in this area is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth,[9] although a 2008 review indicated multiple causes and variation between individuals.[10] Hare estimates that about one percent of the population are psychopaths.[11]
Contents
[hide]

Animavore wrote:I'm pretty sure to lie to people about WMDs and cause a war based on the lies so your friends at Halliburton can make money selling weapons constitutes a lack of empathy
I'm not sure how much it applies all 'round.

EDIT: Was thinking of Lockheed-Martin there but hey, Halliburton is good, too.

Loren Michael wrote:

The Damned wrote:Just a side line I thought about on another thread.

Do you think having empathy for your fellow human being or charitable thoughts or such would inhibit your ability to make money, legitimately of course?

It depends on how you're making your money. Innovations in software and other technology, for example, don't necessarily require much in the way of fucking over your fellow man. Likewise, being an exceptionally talented actor or musician. People in the financial products industry may be a different story.

Loren Michael wrote:Now that you bring it up, I don't think ruthlessness necessarily has anything to do with empathy, nor does illegality. People engaged in competition--in business, in games, whatever--can be, I think, contextually ruthless.

I don't think Bill Gates fits the profile you're trying to put on him, given how he's giving his money away hand over fist.

Delvo wrote:Exactly what was the process for assessing how sociopathic someone was? And, to avoid researcher bias, how were those who did the assessing prevented from having any other information about the subjects?

A nifty follow-up, presuming the methods are valid, would be to apply them to describe the distribution of sociopathy across a wider spectrum of incomes and job positions. I'd suspect that, even given a peak among upper-level executives, there's also a second peak near the bottom.

iamthereforeithink wrote:I do think there is a high correlation between (almost psychopathic) ruthlessness and ability to succeed in business, even in startups and innovation-oriented industries. Look at Mark Zuckerberg. He screwed a few of his Harvard colleagues on his way to the top. Facebook was not a purely egalitarian endeavor. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds is a nice guy who started an open source revolution, but he doesn't seem to have made much money for himself.

The Damned wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:I do think there is a high correlation between (almost psychopathic) ruthlessness and ability to succeed in business, even in startups and innovation-oriented industries. Look at Mark Zuckerberg. He screwed a few of his Harvard colleagues on his way to the top. Facebook was not a purely egalitarian endeavor. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds is a nice guy who started an open source revolution, but he doesn't seem to have made much money for himself.

That's a nice set of anecdotes, I do think there is scope here for not hard science but something credible.

Thanks for the names I have trouble remembering the names of assholes who got rich on the ripping off others.

Linus or linux?

iamthereforeithink wrote:

The Damned wrote:

iamthereforeithink wrote:I do think there is a high correlation between (almost psychopathic) ruthlessness and ability to succeed in business, even in startups and innovation-oriented industries. Look at Mark Zuckerberg. He screwed a few of his Harvard colleagues on his way to the top. Facebook was not a purely egalitarian endeavor. On the other hand, Linus Torvalds is a nice guy who started an open source revolution, but he doesn't seem to have made much money for himself.

That's a nice set of anecdotes, I do think there is scope here for not hard science but something credible.

Thanks for the names I have trouble remembering the names of assholes who got rich on the ripping off others.

Linus or linux?

The guy's name is Linus. The OS he developed is called Linux. While we are on anecdotes, there are probably counter-examples of "justice" eventually catching up with the most ruthless of them. Jeff Skilling of Enron comes to mind.

tribalypredisposed wrote:As I posted early on in the "parent" thread, there are a number of clear advantages for those lacking in the empathy department when it comes to getting rich.

I gave the example of my grandfather allowing the theft of his medical advances to avoid them being kept off the market by litigation. Others made millions off of this theft, so the person with empathy lost out and those with no empathy or morals got rich.

Those with a lot of empathy also spend a lot of time and effort helping other people. My mom and her best friend started an orphanage and school in Zambia, and neither was even close to wealthy. The ability to fly to a country one has never been to before with less than a thousand dollars to your name and a vision and to go from there to many acres of land, scores of happy kids, housing, a school with a library and computer center, a farm, etc shows that the two of them could have achieved a lot for themselves if they had chosen to. (http://www.zambianchildrensfund.org/)

And the recent example of a couple who won the lottery and gave 98% of it to charity also shows that those on the high end of the empathy scale have a marked disadvantage when it comes to being wealthy.

I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doing volunteer work on their way up.

I also think it is obvious that being good at lying confers an advantage, that is the point of lying, and that psychopaths are good liars is not really disputed.

At least at the ends of the bell curve, extreme empathy confers huge disadvanteges when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of wealth while extreme lack of empathy does the opposite.

The Damned wrote:Do you think having empathy for your fellow human being or charitable thoughts or such would inhibit your ability to make money, legitimately of course?

The Damned wrote:

tribalypredisposed wrote:As I posted early on in the "parent" thread, there are a number of clear advantages for those lacking in the empathy department when it comes to getting rich.

I gave the example of my grandfather allowing the theft of his medical advances to avoid them being kept off the market by litigation. Others made millions off of this theft, so the person with empathy lost out and those with no empathy or morals got rich.

Those with a lot of empathy also spend a lot of time and effort helping other people. My mom and her best friend started an orphanage and school in Zambia, and neither was even close to wealthy. The ability to fly to a country one has never been to before with less than a thousand dollars to your name and a vision and to go from there to many acres of land, scores of happy kids, housing, a school with a library and computer center, a farm, etc shows that the two of them could have achieved a lot for themselves if they had chosen to. (http://www.zambianchildrensfund.org/)

And the recent example of a couple who won the lottery and gave 98% of it to charity also shows that those on the high end of the empathy scale have a marked disadvantage when it comes to being wealthy.

I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doing volunteer work on their way up.

I also think it is obvious that being good at lying confers an advantage, that is the point of lying, and that psychopaths are good liars is not really disputed.

At least at the ends of the bell curve, extreme empathy confers huge disadvanteges when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of wealth while extreme lack of empathy does the opposite.

QFT I really can't argue with any of that. Thanks for your insight.

Appeal to common practice
Questionable Cause
Confusing Cause and EffectBiased Sample

tribalypredisposed wrote:I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doingvolunteer work on their way up

Most people are good.

Some people are bad.

Some bad people have lots of money.
Some bad people have no money.

Witticism wrote:

The Damned wrote:

tribalypredisposed wrote:As I posted early on in the "parent" thread, there are a number of clear advantages for those lacking in the empathy department when it comes to getting rich.

I gave the example of my grandfather allowing the theft of his medical advances to avoid them being kept off the market by litigation. Others made millions off of this theft, so the person with empathy lost out and those with no empathy or morals got rich.

Those with a lot of empathy also spend a lot of time and effort helping other people. My mom and her best friend started an orphanage and school in Zambia, and neither was even close to wealthy. The ability to fly to a country one has never been to before with less than a thousand dollars to your name and a vision and to go from there to many acres of land, scores of happy kids, housing, a school with a library and computer center, a farm, etc shows that the two of them could have achieved a lot for themselves if they had chosen to. (http://www.zambianchildrensfund.org/)

And the recent example of a couple who won the lottery and gave 98% of it to charity also shows that those on the high end of the empathy scale have a marked disadvantage when it comes to being wealthy.

I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doing volunteer work on their way up.

I also think it is obvious that being good at lying confers an advantage, that is the point of lying, and that psychopaths are good liars is not really disputed.

At least at the ends of the bell curve, extreme empathy confers huge disadvanteges when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of wealth while extreme lack of empathy does the opposite.

QFT I really can't argue with any of that. Thanks for your insight.

I can.

First of try avoid using the following fallacies:

Appeal to common practice
Questionable Cause
Confusing Cause and EffectBiased Sample

to make a point as they are easily criticized.

tribalypredisposed wrote:I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doingvolunteer work on their way up

Well you just need to read more as appearance isn't all ways at it seems and education - specifically financial education has more to do with a person's ability to create wealth than whether or not they are empathitc.

You could be the least empathetic person in the world and have zero finacial literacy and hence zero wealth.

Or you could be the most empathetic person in the world, a lot of finacial literacy and a lot of wealth.

Here's an anecdote, (seeing as that is what is required in this thread) ...

My twin brother is far wealthier than I am but being twins we are probably identical when it comes to our 'empathy'. I think we probably donate about the same % of our wealth to charity .... but he employees 7 people ... and pays them all more than market value ... plus he helps his client create financial independence so they are not reliant on other taxpayers when they retire.

So by employing 7 people - in essence he is giving 'away' for more wealth than he could donate out of his own pocket.

Appearances are deceptive.

You have to separate the person from the Money.

Most people are good.

Some people are bad.

Some bad people have lots of money.
Some bad people have no money.

It really is that simple.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Okay....so...thanks for the heads-up on the fallacies that I have not committed. (?)

tribalypredisposed wrote:
Often people need to justify/rationalize their own greed.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
Paying people to work for you is not "giving away" anything.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
If you want to discuss the topic of what altruism means I am happy to oblige, or you can just look it up in a dictionary.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
Yes, you can do good things and make money as well. I have worked for a company recognized with an award for helping in the community, and the owners are wealthy. So? Have you understood the question posed at the top of the thread? I cannot see how the answer might be yes.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
I identified and gave examples of ways in which those who were high in empathy would be at a statistical disadvantage for becoming wealthy and remaining so.

tribalypredisposed wrote:And the recent example of a couple who won the lottery and gave 98% of it to charity also shows that those on the high end of the empathy scale have a marked disadvantage when it comes to being wealthy.

tribalypredisposed wrote:You seem not to know what a bell curve is either; I could post a link but I am hoping you know how to Google.

tribalypredisposed wrote:That is all good, and the owners are more empathetic than average for sure, but they are not on the edge of the bell curve ready to risk life and limb to smuggle refugees or start an orphanage in a distant country.

tribalypredisposed wrote:The assignment as I understood it was to identify if and why there would be a statistical variation between the wealthy and poor when it came to empathy. That is what I attempted to contribute an answer to. What you are talking about, I am not sure.