Has the dead cat finished bouncing?

itwasntme001

Agree with the above comment for the most part.  But it is important to not confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.  The former is significantly more neurotic and likely to commit obvious criminal acts whereas the latter is a lot less neurotic and able to live much more of a "normal" life (although both do share many traits such as low affective empathy).  I would say those in power (at the top) of various corporate and even government organizations are more likely to be psychopaths than sociopaths.  Sociopaths will simply be easily rooted out and will be unable to reach the higher echelons  Also all psychopaths are narcissistic but the converse is not necessarily true.

We also need to distinguish between the real risk takers - those who are running their corporations as founders - to the so called corporate executive who has joined a well established corporation and risen up the ranks.  In both cases you could find psychopaths in positions of power, potentially being a danger to society as a whole.  But I would argue it is the corporate psychopath rather then the founder psychopath that is probably more likely to be a danger.  E.g. the banking industry.

In an ideal world those with narcissistic and psychopathic features in their personality should not be allowed to rise to the top, perhaps by means of some sort of testing run by qualified mental health professionals.  Should hopefully lead to a better society for the long run but may have to be at the expense of the success of any particular organization.

Username999

itwasntme001 said:

Agree with the above comment for the most part.  But it is important to not confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.  The former is significantly more neurotic and likely to commit obvious criminal acts whereas the latter is a lot less neurotic and able to live much more of a "normal" life (although both do share many traits such as low affective empathy).  I would say those in power (at the top) of various corporate and even government organizations are more likely to be psychopaths than sociopaths.  Sociopaths will simply be easily rooted out and will be unable to reach the higher echelons  Also all psychopaths are narcissistic but the converse is not necessarily true.

We also need to distinguish between the real risk takers - those who are running their corporations as founders - to the so called corporate executive who has joined a well established corporation and risen up the ranks.  In both cases you could find psychopaths in positions of power, potentially being a danger to society as a whole.  But I would argue it is the corporate psychopath rather then the founder psychopath that is probably more likely to be a danger.  E.g. the banking industry.

In an ideal world those with narcissistic and psychopathic features in their personality should not be allowed to rise to the top, perhaps by means of some sort of testing run by qualified mental health professionals.  Should hopefully lead to a better society for the long run but may have to be at the expense of the success of any particular organization.

What a load of b...

DiggerUK

Username999 said:

itwasntme001 said:

Agree with the above comment for the most part.  But it is important to not confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.  The former is significantly more neurotic and likely to commit obvious criminal acts whereas the latter is a lot less neurotic and able to live much more of a "normal" life (although both do share many traits such as low affective empathy).  I would say those in power (at the top) of various corporate and even government organizations are more likely to be psychopaths than sociopaths.  Sociopaths will simply be easily rooted out and will be unable to reach the higher echelons  Also all psychopaths are narcissistic but the converse is not necessarily true.

We also need to distinguish between the real risk takers - those who are running their corporations as founders - to the so called corporate executive who has joined a well established corporation and risen up the ranks.  In both cases you could find psychopaths in positions of power, potentially being a danger to society as a whole.  But I would argue it is the corporate psychopath rather then the founder psychopath that is probably more likely to be a danger.  E.g. the banking industry.

In an ideal world those with narcissistic and psychopathic features in their personality should not be allowed to rise to the top, perhaps by means of some sort of testing run by qualified mental health professionals.  Should hopefully lead to a better society for the long run but may have to be at the expense of the success of any particular organization.

What a load of b...

....ollocks..._

BananaRepublic

Username999 said:

itwasntme001 said:

Agree with the above comment for the most part.  But it is important to not confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.  The former is significantly more neurotic and likely to commit obvious criminal acts whereas the latter is a lot less neurotic and able to live much more of a "normal" life (although both do share many traits such as low affective empathy).  I would say those in power (at the top) of various corporate and even government organizations are more likely to be psychopaths than sociopaths.  Sociopaths will simply be easily rooted out and will be unable to reach the higher echelons  Also all psychopaths are narcissistic but the converse is not necessarily true.

We also need to distinguish between the real risk takers - those who are running their corporations as founders - to the so called corporate executive who has joined a well established corporation and risen up the ranks.  In both cases you could find psychopaths in positions of power, potentially being a danger to society as a whole.  But I would argue it is the corporate psychopath rather then the founder psychopath that is probably more likely to be a danger.  E.g. the banking industry.

In an ideal world those with narcissistic and psychopathic features in their personality should not be allowed to rise to the top, perhaps by means of some sort of testing run by qualified mental health professionals.  Should hopefully lead to a better society for the long run but may have to be at the expense of the success of any particular organization.

What a load of b...

In what respect is it baloney? Psychology research has shown sociopaths and narcissists to be far more prevalent on company  boards than in the general population. Research also suggests that the kind of people who tend to reach the top are often bad managers who do not listen, and often take undue risks. 

BananaRepublic

itwasntme001 said:

Agree with the above comment for the most part.  But it is important to not confuse sociopaths with psychopaths.  The former is significantly more neurotic and likely to commit obvious criminal acts whereas the latter is a lot less neurotic and able to live much more of a "normal" life (although both do share many traits such as low affective empathy).  I would say those in power (at the top) of various corporate and even government organizations are more likely to be psychopaths than sociopaths.  Sociopaths will simply be easily rooted out and will be unable to reach the higher echelons  Also all psychopaths are narcissistic but the converse is not necessarily true.

We also need to distinguish between the real risk takers - those who are running their corporations as founders - to the so called corporate executive who has joined a well established corporation and risen up the ranks.  In both cases you could find psychopaths in positions of power, potentially being a danger to society as a whole.  But I would argue it is the corporate psychopath rather then the founder psychopath that is probably more likely to be a danger.  E.g. the banking industry.

In an ideal world those with narcissistic and psychopathic features in their personality should not be allowed to rise to the top, perhaps by means of some sort of testing run by qualified mental health professionals.  Should hopefully lead to a better society for the long run but may have to be at the expense of the success of any particular organization.

Whilst agreeing with much of the above, haven’t you confused sociopath and psychopath? Sociopaths are thought to be created by upbringing and can lead positive lives, though they are manipulating and untrustworthy and lack empathy. Psychopaths are thought to be created at birth, and lack all empathy. They are the more dangerous ones, especially if treated cruelly when young and some believe they cannot be reformed, although many will pretend to have been reformed when given behavioural therapy. The Jon Ronson book on psychopaths is a good read. 

Should we weed out narcissists? No company led by Steve Jobs? No company led by Elon Musk? I worked for a narcissist who I came to despise, but removing such people smacks of a totalitarian society. 

itwasntme001

I agree with your first paragraph BananaRepublic; I do not think it contradicts what I have said?  Perhaps it was the bit where I said psychopath's lead more normal lives?  They do compared to sociapaths generally.  Sociopaths are easily aggitated and get triggered very easily.  At the extreme is can cause them to do highly dangerous things under the right circumstances.  Psychopaths on the other hand have very low neuroticism so they do not react in an erratic way but they are more cunning and deceiving.  They are able to hold down jobs longer and form relationships longer as well - but they fake their emotions, empathy etc to stay in jobs and relationships as they are very good at it.  Sociopaths can show some remorse but psychopaths have pretty much zero guilt.

That is what makes psychopaths so dangerous - 0 guilt/empathy and no remorse and easily convincing giving them potentially a lot of power and influence.

It is important to keep in mind that all these traits, whether its narsissism, psychopathy or sociopathy, live on a spectrum so any one person can live on any part of this spectrum for each trait.  So it is worth bearing in mind when making generalisations.

On your last paragraph - You are right, perhaps I should have reworded what I said about weeding about psychopaths and narassisists to say it should only be done if there is evidence of wrong doing i.e. harm to society in anyway.  Of course it is usually too late by then given the personality of psychopaths!

Steve Jobs and Elon Musk may or may not be psychopathic and/or narassistic but so far they were/are confined to their niches and pretty much focused on Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal where it is difficult to see how it can be negative for society.  In fact it has been positive so far.  But that is just two examples out of so many leaders and influencers where this may not always be the case.  Take for example Fred Goodwin; I have no idea whether he has any of the aforementioned traits but surely he and his lieutenants knew about the US subprime garbage they were selling to investors - with no empathy for said investors and a complete disregard for the repurcussions that they knew very well would follow (perhaps not the the extent that it eventually did in the form of the GFC).  This is why I say that perhaps it is the corporate executive psychopath we should worry about the most.  Many other potential examples such as Boeing and Enron.

itwasntme001

Rise in narsassism -> Destruction of the community and the Rise in corporatism and globalism -> Rise in financial assets - > Rise in inequality -> Rise in populism -> ?????

port_of_spain

I feel a bit responsible for leading the thread astray now.

The cat has landed on a ledge, and is sunning itself, IMHO.

waveydavey48

kinger101 said:

waveydavey48 said:

Thrugelmir said:

Creative people are best described as eccentric. 

Indeed. The original Nikola Tesla after whom Musk named his company was a genius, but as nutty as a fruitcake..

For your information, it is believed Tesla at the very least suffered from OCD.  Please don't use terms like "nutty as a fruitcake" to stigmatize mental illness.

You're quite right.
I didn't intend to offend anyone and am sorry if I did.

vitamin_joe

port_of_spain said:

I feel a bit responsible for leading the thread astray now.

The cat has landed on a ledge, and is sunning itself, IMHO.

heheh!
I think the cat has landed on an anti-gravity machine and is hovering, somewhat implausibly, far above the earth.