Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work; A Review

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
And - lets face it - if those of us who are empathetic don't want to be ruled by the psychopathic tribal hierarchies of old anymore - it is US who will have to TAKE BACK the REINS OF POWER from their Kleptocratic hands!

The question is - do we have the WILL TO DO IT!!!!

Another question is: In such a struggle for power, doesn't victory involve becoming as 'psychotic' as the enemy - equally ruthless and self-centered?

So you either lose the struggle, or replace one sophisticated, but savage tyranny with another. As i said in my post above, this Old Testament logic is not a solution, just a cycle.

There is no sloution, since the alterantive New Testament phylsophy of turning the other cheek simply invites tyranny - leaves the door open to hungry beasts prowling outside.

Having said that, perhaps in the long term 'turning the other cheek' is the only way of really ending this cycle of violence we find ourselves at the vanguard of!

But in our lifetimes we will see no man-made renaissance of love over violence in which we downtrodden defeat our oppressors and become the new dominant force, while somehow managing to retain our humanity throughout the carnage and terrible choices such a struggle would entail. And once we win, any humanity left would be dwarfed beside the temptations of our new wealth and power. There will always be business to be done, deals to be made, secret alliances to be forged in this New Age. There'll be new hierarchies and a new downtrodden class. Revolutions are the moments between tyrannies.

Sorry to be so downbeat. One day we may get it right, but we may need a little more help from beyond, first. Right now we're still a ways yet from being free from the bidding of our egos and need to ensure the dominance of our offspring; there's still a little psycho in all of us. 'Til then there'll be times when you live righteously, and others when you survive well. And maybe sometimes if you pay attention, try hard to rise above yourself and do the right thing at the right time, you'll get to do both at once. For those brief moments life is worth living.





[edit on 23-2-2010 by McGinty]

reply to post by McGinty


You simplify it in a way you say others do.

In the past with the monarchies we see a consolidation of power, this was based on the most ruthless of people. However humans have thrived not because of this mindset but because of the community mindset. If this were not the case then leaders would have never recognised democracy or the republic.

As for ghandi and the like seeking power i will say that they sought to change and power came as a byproduct. This is very different to those who seek power first and change society afterwards.

With modern human society it is strange to see how decent people have many friends and the powerful do not. An example is how around 8 years ago i attended a funeral of a neighbor. Nearly 500 people attended, the crematorium was packed out the doors. He wasn't a rich man, just a good man and the people were there to honour him.

Now compare this to one of the rich men. People attend their funerals not because they love them, respect them or care for them, but because it can further their own life.

This is a clear difference.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Angus123

 

Well, I cannot speak for psychopaths, yet.

However, having already been diagnosed with two mental "disorders" or "illnesses" whichever you prefer, I am probably on the cusp of being a sociopath. I can tell you this, it isn't fun.

It isn't fun getting up every morning and asking yourself, "Why the # am I even here?" It isn't fun being a stranger in an even stranger land. It isn't fun thinking about things that doesn't even cross most peoples mind once in their life, much less every day. It isn't fun knowing that people know something is a little "off" about you, but they can't pinpoint exactly what it is.

Just take my word for it. It isn't fun, period. You may thik you would like to know what it's like, but you don't. Believe me.

I hope I didn't offend you. Thanks for your insights into my somewhat selfish musings.
And good luck

There's so much wrong stuff in this thread, let me just swat some, in passing (I am a psychopath, soaking in it, and also read widely in the literature on the subject).

Psychopaths are unlikely to run large corporations, because they would get bored and wander off during the early lowly constrained apprenticeship part. They ain't the type for long sustained acting-right, and they would just as easily get the job and then quit, screw it up for almost nothing on purpose, et cetera x 10000.

If you were a psychopath, or actually knew any correctly-labelled psychopaths (as opposed to medicalized namecalling in order to shift blame for your failures of interpersonal relationship technique, and/or diagnosing people in the news en masse and at a distance in order to exteriorize your personal dissatisfactions (but I digress)) this would be radiantly obvious to you.

Psychopaths very much have the chacteristic we see here in this Wikipedia on The Mask of Sanity, scroll down to characteristics...(the whole list is pretty good, I have 'em all but #14, for example)...

16. Failure to follow any life plan.

No, really, it's true...that's a blazing pathognomonic among the psychopath folk...and people like that are not usually the people who run corporations, the corporate heads had a life plan and did what they were supposed to, yes yes, don't you think...

And the Hare that is cited is a poor thinker (having read reviews of his work), his material seems a garbage verbal overlay that contributes little...consistently in the literature psychopath=sociopath=antisocial personality disorder, the name change is just fashion over time but the terms have been used to describe the exact same population of people...the only meaningful distinctions among psychopath types will be done with complete individual genotyping and brainscans, type-of-stuff, and not his exciting new definitions...



[edit on 23-2-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

reply to post by LadySkadi


Great post LadySkadi....

I even S&F...

So if you believe there are 'Psychopaths in Suits' I'm sure you will agree that a lot of those psychopaths are also wearing military attire as well..?.....

Correct..??...

How do we get the military back from the psychopaths..???..???????

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
If you were a psychopath, or actually knew any correctly-labelled psychopaths (as opposed to medicalized namecalling in order to shift blame for your failures of interpersonal relationship technique, and/or diagnosing people in the news en masse and at a distance in order to exteriorize your personal dissatisfactions (but I digress)) this would be radiantly obvious to you.

Eel, I like what you have to say re the OP's very interesting post, because it injects several cups of reality into the discussion. While I enjoy reading the posts, the topic needlessy furthers the perception of the chasm of the political and corporate world from the average person. Unethical or criminal behavior wherever it exists should be called out and exposed when it is discovered.

Aside from being a futile pursuit, it isn't necessary to try to get into the heads of entire sectors of people, as "daignosis ay a distance" as you put it is a broad brush that sweeps in the innocent as well as the guilty.

The OP says knowing this is important to taking "back our corporations and political parties". Well, unless one is shareholder, they are NOT "your" corporations.

You can be a shareholder and try to change things or take a job in the corporation and do the same. Or you can be a community activist and try to educate people or pressure corporations to do what you want them to do (ala shake-down artists like Jesse Jackson). You can be an investigative journalist of sorts and EXPOSE unethical and criminal behavior (always welcome). But, as for trying to make wholesale changes in corporations "from a distance" or in some other way, I fear your prescription -- like the Obama Admin and Congress -- is to try to subjectively "pick winners and losers" and "manage businesses through poltical edict.

Hear this well: if you have never "made a payroll", never "created jobs", never generated revenues (and this describes the President and most members of Congress"), you have absolutely no (NONE) idea of what it entails. Nor can you have an appreciation of what the business world does day in and day out to create the jobs that employee people and yes, feed and house their families.

The "political parties" as you say or the govt as a whole other topic. You do OWN this. Accord to the US COnstitution, it represent YOU and is supposed to be your creation. So, go for it. I will throw the Federal Reserve into this as well as it is a creation of govt.

reply to post by rainfall
Hi rainfall... nice to see you here. You know, I just S/F your recent thread as well. I think there must have been a recent "hiccup in the matrix"... (just kidding, of course.)

As to your question regarding the military, my only answer (at this moment) is the same as if it were for business or political or any other area...

One at a time.

reply to post by pumpkinorange
This thread began as an idea based upon a book so yes, it is most certainly written in broad terms and does not account for or even explore every aspect of corporate environment, political environment and other aspects intertwine. It also does not necessarily reflect my own point of view. Do I think there are those who have "tendencies" working in these environments? Of course. The same as in many others. Do I think these environments may draw certain "types" yes. Does that mean everyone who is there is a Psychopath? Of course not.

You can be a shareholder and try to change things or take a job in the corporation and do the same. Or you can be a community activist and try to educate people or pressure corporations to do what you want them to do (ala shake-down artists like Jesse Jackson). You can be an investigative journalist of sorts and EXPOSE unethical and criminal behavior (always welcome). But, as for trying to make wholesale changes in corporations "from a distance" or in some other way, I fear your prescription -- like the Obama Admin and Congress -- is to try to subjectively "pick winners and losers" and "manage businesses through poltical edict.

I don't have a prescription nor am I making the claim the "more government" involvement in the private sector is beneficial. In fact, I would like to see less.

Hear this well: if you have never "made a payroll", never "created jobs", never generated revenues (and this describes the President and most members of Congress"), you have absolutely no (NONE) idea of what it entails. Nor can you have an appreciation of what the business world does day in and day out to create the jobs that employee people and yes, feed and house their families.

To this I would add: The very great need for production and manufacturing to sustain a country's economy and it's people. The US has lost this and may not get it back. What will sustain us going forward? Yet to be determined.

Originally posted by rainfall
reply to post by LadySkadi

 

Great post LadySkadi....

I even S&F...

So if you believe there are 'Psychopaths in Suits' I'm sure you will agree that a lot of those psychopaths are also wearing military attire as well..?.....

Correct..??...

How do we get the military back from the psychopaths..???..???????

To do that all the politician's would have to be gotten rid of quickly.

Choose your own imaginary methods.

The military takes its marching order from Washington D.C.

The entirety of Washington D.C. is full of psychopath's.

It's called the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches....

The world is messed up today because it punishes greed, but does not reward ambition. Perhaps the word "psychopath" is not a good label for the people that are getting ahead these days. It would be more appropriate to call them "greedy" rather than ambitious.

I disagree with Gordon Gecko in that greed is bad, while ambition is good. Ambition leads men to find workable and sustainable solutions to difficult problems. Ambition leads drives men to work hard to make a better world for themselves and those around them. Ambition is good. The world will not end because it is too ambitious.

Greed is bad and destructive. Greed leads men to make themselves richer without any regard for how they may harm others while acquiring wealth. Greed leads men to pursue immediate satisfaction without taking into account whether their decisions will have adverse affects in the long term. Greed is the worst form of stupidity in that it masquerades as wisdom Greed can destroy the world.

Ahh, very interesting, LS. We all have this notion the psychopaths are "out there", the Ted Bundy's; Jeffrey Daumer's, etc.; and I was always taught this is actually a relatively rare personality disorder.

But this brings it rather close, doesn't it? Places them out in the open where we can see them.

Wall Street/Bankers? Count me in. Damn bunch of psychopaths!

Just maybe an off-topic note: I still like the term psychopath, and use it. But of course it has been replaced over the years with terms like sociopath, and anti-social personality Disorder; Conduct Disorder in children. But, but "they" are talking about bringing it back!!!! Perhaps having "levels" of the disorder, with "psychopath" being the worst of the worst. Hm. Maybe we can change the name "wallstreet", as well, to something a little more fitting.

(A few suggestions are coming to mind....but I guess I'd better not...)

Very enlightening info. s/f

reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Since you mentioned Gordon...

The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bull#. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth.

I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy? It's the free market. And you're a part of it. You've got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I've still got a lot to teach you.

I'd say that is still relevant...



[edit on 23-2-2010 by LadySkadi]

reply to post by Angus123


No....I wasn't offended.I just think it's important that people know that it's not a condition to be envied.

reply to post by poet1b

Originally posted by poet1b
Seriously, murderers, rapists, serial killers are not bad people?

Seriously: no, they are not. They are people who do bad things.

In other circumstances, the same people may do good things. They may be kind and loving parents, conscientious workers in the helping professions (lots of doctors, like Harold Shipman, have been murderers). They may act heroically in a disaster or battle and save dozens of lives. They may love animals and small children, or help old ladies across the street.

Then why do we have jails?

Good question. Why do we?

The people you list, are people who did not seek power, but solutions.

I'm afraid you are wrong. The historical record shows that they all actively sought power, even Gandhi. Doubtless they sought it for a good purpose--but that, remember, was exactly my point.

* * *

reply to post by McGinty

Evolution has favored the Psycho, since they ruthlessly apply themselves to this survival.

Actually, evolution favours individuals who are well adapted to survive and reproduce in their specific environment. For humans, a key aspect of the environment is other people. Ruthless self-interest and violence are not evolutionarily favoured; the ruthless, violent one may prosper for a while, but sooner or later the others will band together and do him in.

The ideal human survivor is someone who strikes a good balance between self-interest and promoting the interests of his or her kin group and society. That, not an endless war of all against all, is the lesson Darwinian evolution teaches us.

* * *

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

I wouldn't say that psychopaths are violent criminals and that's that, that to me is the false and widely believed stereotype.

If you look again at my post, you'll see that I have backed up my arguments with references from solid medical sources. If it is a 'false and widely believed stereotype', it is a stereotype accepted by the best medical authorities.

The link you posted is to some sort of New Age site; less flaky in its presentation than such sites normally are, but I advise treating any 'information' gleaned from it with great caution.

* * *

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

Uh, given the fact that I suffer from Borderline personality disorder and bi-polar disorder I think I would know how it develops better than some "genius" putting forth a bunch of THEORIES about how it develops.

My sympathies regarding your condition. Neither of the disorders you mention is the same as psychopathy. Suffering from them doesn't qualify anybody as an expert on it. The 'theories' you denigrate are backed by solid research. The 'environment causes mental illness' hypothesis is not so firmly based, and a lot of the research that does exist tends to discredit it.

* * *

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel

Great post. Of course, if you really are a psychopath, my approval would mean nothing to you--though you might assure me it did if that served your evil purposes...

Whether or not you really are a psychopath, I am in full agreement with nearly all the points you make--not to mention your characterization of what is happening on this thread:

medicalized namecalling in order to shift blame for your failures... and/or diagnosing people in the news en masse and at a distance in order to exteriorize your personal dissatisfactions

Perhaps it does take a psychopath to put it as bluntly as this.

I don't propose to defend Hare; this is not my field, and he is an authority whose bona fides I can judge only by his reputation in it, which is high. Whatever your opinion of him, you seem to agree with the point he makes in my quote: that there is a wide gap between psychopathy and the superficially similar disorders of other badly socialized people. This merely reinforces the point on which we both most certainly agree: that there is a world of difference between psychopathy and common-or-garden Type A ruthlessness. Cleckley, to judge by the link you posted, would agree with this too.

Originally posted by Astyanaxpost by McGinty

 

Evolution has favored the Psycho, since they ruthlessly apply themselves to this survival.

Actually, evolution favours individuals who are well adapted to survive and reproduce in their specific environment. For humans, a key aspect of the environment is other people. Ruthless self-interest and violence are not evolutionarily favoured; the ruthless, violent one may prosper for a while, but sooner or later the others will band together and do him in.

The ideal human survivor is someone who strikes a good balance between self-interest and promoting the interests of his or her kin group and society. That, not an endless war of all against all, is the lesson Darwinian evolution teaches us.

Darwin didn't invent evolution, he observed the phenomena and articulated a theory and promoted it. Like all theories it's not an end in itself, but a work in progress. The corporate landscape was less evolved in his time, but i'm sure he'd have made observation similar to those suggested in this LadySkadi's thread.

'An endless war of all against all' makes my thesis seem a little melodramatic - a slightly manipulative act! But one thing Darwin's observations did illustrate however, is that life is indeed a struggle - violent and ruthless - to survive. The animal, and plant, kingdoms show the savagery of evolution in full swing.

Now you have it that because people are more evolved than animals etc. this makes cooperation a necessary factor in survival, thus evolution. You are absolutely correct, but i believe the OP's point here is that psychopathic tendencies would have us exploit this cooperation (particularly within the Corporation) to benefit ones self above others.

So, those who are most ruthless, most psycho, will say, or do whatever will benefit them most - they manipulate, lie, gossip etc. What they lack in empathy, they compensate for in a articulate grasp of the politics of social interactions. So i agree with you, however, so do the psychos and they're very good faking the social necessities of human evolution and this ability makes them great recruitment material for the workplaces that require the appearance of sincerity, along with the ability to turn around an be a ruthless bastard when necessary.

Some here have said that Psychos don't know how to interact, or can't and won't want to maintain a convincing facade for very long, but there are subtle variations in the condition such as the serial killers that maintain marriages, jobs etc. for years, while secretly continuing with their ghastly deeds.

i've not read every post in the thread, so i may be repeating, but i find an astounding work about psychopats "political ponerology". it's incredible how much influence they can have in a society.

Originally posted by Astyanax

 

reply to post by TheLaughingGod

 

I wouldn't say that psychopaths are violent criminals and that's that, that to me is the false and widely believed stereotype.

If you look again at my post, you'll see that I have backed up my arguments with references from solid medical sources. If it is a 'false and widely believed stereotype', it is a stereotype accepted by the best medical authorities.

The link you posted is to some sort of New Age site; less flaky in its presentation than such sites normally are, but I advise treating any 'information' gleaned from it with great caution.

There are many patients who show relatively circumscribed antisocial behavior or
temporary episodes of gross, general delinquency, who have, I feel, much less in
common with the obvious psychopath than those who
make a better outward impression but who consistently show signs of inner subjective
reactions typical of the clinically disabled patient.
These patients with temporary or circumscribed maladjustment or self-defeating
behavior will be referred to later at greater length.* They are mentioned here to
distinguish them not only from the fully manifested psychopath but also from those
who, over the years, show more subtle indications of widespread and intractable defect
or deviation in essential personal reactions and subjective evaluations.
The psychopathologic process, or state, which I believe is seriously disabling the
patients already presented may be regarded as affecting in part and in varying degree
those yet to be discussed. It may now be added that I believe that in these personalities
designated as partially or inwardly affected, a very deep-seated disorder often exists.
The true difference between them and the psychopaths who continually go to jails or to
psychiatric hospitals is that they keep up a far better and more consistent outward
appearance of being normal. This outward appearance may include business or
professional careers that continue in a sense successful, and which are truly successful
when measured by financial reward or by the casual observer's opinion of real
accomplishment, It must be remembered that even the most severely and obviously
disabled psychopath presents a technical appearance of sanity, often one of high
intellectual capacities, and not infrequently succeeds in business or professional activities
for short periods, sometimes for considerable periods.
I maintain, however, that the actual but concealed pathology in some of the
patients now to be described is in a deeper sense also far-reaching and profound.
Although they occasionally appear on casual inspection as successful members of the
community, as able lawyers, executives, or physicians, they do not, it seems, succeed in
the sense of finding satisfaction or fulfillment in their accomplishments.

This is from Mask of Sanity written by the authority on the subject, Hervey Cleckley, which both you and nine-eyed-eel seem to agree with.

Don't knock the site, knock the information, it's built on Hervey Cleckley's work.. I haven't browsed the site thoroughly so I don't know, maybe they get into some far out ideas somewhere else on the site. Doesn't really matter.

The psychopaths you see in prison are the unsuccessful ones.. Cleckley wouldn't write a chapter called "The psychopath as businessman" if they were all violent criminals unable to control themselves. Yes, that is the stereotype.

Originally posted by mutante
i've not read every post in the thread, so i may be repeating, but i find an astounding work about psychopats "political ponerology". it's incredible how much influence they can have in a society.

What a coincidence, I added it to my list of books to buy yesterday, I think it was unityemissions that recommended it in some thread.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by TheLaughingGod]

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
There's so much wrong stuff in this thread, let me just swat some, in passing (I am a psychopath, soaking in it, and also read widely in the literature on the subject).

Psychopaths are unlikely to run large corporations, because they would get bored and wander off during the early lowly constrained apprenticeship part. They ain't the type for long sustained acting-right, and they would just as easily get the job and then quit, screw it up for almost nothing on purpose, et cetera x 10000.
[edit on 23-2-2010 by nine-eyed-eel]

You may be getting Psycopath mixed up with Sociopath (but perhaps this is a common trait in psychopaths, since you describe yourself as such).

This isn't the greatest source, but it's articulate and clear:

Because of the organized personality of the psychopath, he or she might have a tendency to be better educated than the average sociopath, who probably lacks the attentive skills to excel in school. While psychopaths can fly under the radar of society, many maintaining families and steady work, a sociopath more often lacks the skills and drive for mimicking normal behavior, making “seemingly healthy” relationships and a stable home less likely. From a criminal standpoint, a sociopath’s crimes are typically disorganized and spontaneous, while the psychopath’s crimes are well planned out. For this reason, psychopaths are harder to catch than sociopaths, as the sociopath is more apt to leave ample evidence in his or her explosions of violence.

www.wisegeek.com...

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why we have jails, then you simply are not connected to reality.

Yes, murders and rapists, and other criminals also do good things in their lives, but they also are willing to commit horrible acts for their own personal gain, which means they can not be trusted to roam our communities any more than lions and bears, because like any other predator, they are willing to kill you are your loved ones for their own personal needs.

Animals do not know any different. Humans do, or should.

People willing to lie cheat and steal for their personal gain are no different.

If you are right about the historical figures you mentioned, then please, provide the evidence to back you claims? I have read a great deal about the most of the people you mentioned, and you are wrong.

Ghandi, I would say, has gotten much better press than he earned.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by poet1b]

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel


So Hitler and all the others in history like him weren't psychopaths?

Are you sure about that, because it sounds like to me, you really don't want to face the reality of the situation.

U.S. industrialists financed Hitler.

JP Morgan got his start by selling a bunch of known defective rifles to the army which then horribly maimed a bunch of young soldiers, proving he was just another psychopath.