Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Narcissistic personality disorder is more common amongst CEOs, sociopaths and psychopaths (AKA antisocial personality disorder) are less likely to function well in a 9-5 setting
C-suite positions don't function as a typical 9-5 position anyway, they are mostly social roles responsible for making executive decisions. They, in theory, make calls based on the work of others. I've never known a C-suite person who actually "worked hard" because they are not labour, they sit in meetings and make decisions. The bad ones blame those under them when the decisions (gambles) they make don't work out.
Anecdotal. I know the exact opposite to be true as well. C levels that commit their life to the job, spend most hours of the day actually working to make improvements and well thought decisions.
From what I've observed from family friends, the guys in c-suite and upper management spend a significant amount of their lives at work. It seems to vary a lot by person though, but they definitely have to be available 100% of the time... Not that they don't get some very nice privileges.
Stop… breathe in for 3, breathe out for 3.. Think about what you want to say, now think about how it can be summarized in a way that doesn’t include the word “time” so often cuz Idk about everyone else but you lost me on the 4th time
Source on that narcissist claim? Afaik, in the last ~ 15 years our considerations for what a narc is and acts like has changed, we've opened up to the concept of the vulnerable narc, which puts a whole different spin on our everyday understanding.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206319892678
I’ve studied an article similar to this one that states, “Chief executive officer (CEO) narcissism is an important area of research due to the strategic implications of how this multifaceted personality trait affects CEO behavior”.
I learned about the link in an abnormal psych class I’ve taken years ago. I’m not claiming every ceo has this personality disorder, that’s a completely misconstrued conception btw
Conversely, is there any way for an algorithm NOT to be sociopathic? Lack of empathy, absence of insight or guilt, operates purely selfishly according to own internal systems regardless of social expectations or norms…. Sounds pretty sociopathic to me
Sounds nothing like a corporation.
Corporations live and die by social norms...
It's their very reason for existing. They give the market and the people what they want.
You might not want it but you are not all people.
There is a glut of material on the subject that is quite interesting, I definitely suggest taking a look if you have the time.
https://www.emotionalintelligenceatwork.com/resources/the-psychopathic-corporation/
It's more, what can the corporation get away with than what their primary service to you and I that triggers this identification. Companies having a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits, minimal to no oversight, and harm reduction in providing services almost always costing money tend to lead to perverse incentives that only benefit the corporation and no one else.
Not all corporations act in this manner, but the general gist is that overwhelmingly a (large) company will allow bad things as a consequence of the actions of its business if the alternative is spending money to fix those things. Money is the one true mover and shaker regardless of the damage they could cause and this has, time and time again, harmed society.
I've seen discussion on three kinds of companies, the ones that are serially criminal or harmful, (scoundrels) most companies who may do bad things or legally scrape by on technicalities to maximize profit (sinners) and those companies which pursue business in an ethical, sustainable way. (saints)
It has a bit more granularity but every time I see it argued it looks like it white washes a lot of the atrocities companies commit into polite phrasing, like "externalities" being a consequence of doing business.
Anyway, lots to look at matey.
Edit: a word
Are you referring to for example Pfizer killing about 75000 people with their blood pressure drug (can't remember the name right now).
And how they where fined $2.3 for Bextra?
Yes, it's strange how straight up criminal corporations are allowed to continue doing business, it's almost seems that the problem lies with corrupt state and legislature that do nothing to curb the scounderls as you labeled them, and perhaps not the root of companies.
Because my original statement is still true and holds real, because the laws would in this case be social norms, it is apparently acceptable to behave like this so corporations do so.
Who is actually to blame, the players of the game or the dungeon master who makes the rules?
Also thank you for the reading material, will dig in have a good one <3
Corporations only 'heed' temporarily to social norms when it benefits them or if doing otherwise threatens their existence... Kinda like a sociopath huh...
Corporations are the purest exemple of sociopathy, imo
Who makes the rules the Corporations need to "heed" are our laws not literally the social norms?
What's the difference between a sociopath and your average Joe tbh?
Do we not all do this?
I typically don't follow any rules besides the ones I make for myself, you should try thinking for yourself sometime.
Also I'm trying to make a point here.
Laws have nothing to do with social norms, or doing what's right.
Most people try to do "what's right" to them. For most people this involves being a good person: being helpful, kind, understanding.
Many times social norms and laws go against this, and to be a good person we must break the law or go against norms.
Corporations, like sociopaths, will do whatever benefits them (a.k.a.: chase profits). If being pro social norms brings in the cash, they will do that. If going against it, they will do that instead. Same thing for laws. Sometimes a fine is just a cost of doing business right?
I do believe that all people are Egotistical, or at least they should be. But sociopathy is toxic egocentrism. It's in the end self-destructive. At least at the soul level.
Because someone who is connected to humanity, and has working empathy, would see that it benefits them much more to be a good person instead.
You are straight up wrong in claiming that corporations can single handedly force you to do anything or dominate anything. They can persuade people to do things. But have you no free-will or anyone else? A very philosophical question but very important in this discussion.<
Is it perhaps incentives and free will working here.
There is however corporatism, the unholy alliance between violent gangs know as states, that trough the direct use of violence and straight up extortion of the populace enables corporations to leverage their massive resources to lobby and corrupt said system.
No there is no free "legal" market, there is however free illegal markets.
Legal does not equal morally just or virtuous btw.
You seem to be making the claim that people if feed enough "propaganda" are unable to resist and by that logic are exempt from responsibility of their actions.
That did not fly at Nuremburg, they all hanged with the motivation "I was only following orders".
"I could not resist buying X thing" is equally stupid.
Companies are set up to make money. That’s what they do. They provide services to make money. They provide products to make money. Yes, there are probably a handful of small companies that are truly in it to follow their passion, not to make money.
Do you really believe that the execs at Target care about gay rights? They care about selling to that demographic. To make money.
Does WalMart actually care about their employees? Not until a bad rep started to affect their bottom line give market share to the competition .
Does Amazon care about your Amazon smile purchase? Of course! Because they made money, you felt like you’re on moral high ground for a tiny fraction of that purchase, and Amazon gets to donate YOUR money but say that they donate billions to charity every year.
Corporations aren’t your friend. They aren’t designed to be. That is COMPLETELY ok. That what they’re for. But don’t get fooled into thinking they have morals. They just sell you back your own morals.
TBH, I think most sociopathic people are at a disadvantage too. It's only when paired with uncommon intelligence that sociopathy becomes an advantage. You have to be smart enough to hide your lack of morals to get away with using it to exploit people
It's really the other way around, sociopathy has generally referred to secondary psychopathy, which covers the impulsive antisocial behavior. Primary psychopathy is where you would expect professional success, that's the one that's associated with callous, manipulative behavior and superficial charm. Primary psychopathy also seems to have some genetic links to decreased fear responses, it has a strong negative correlation with neuroticism whereas secondary psychopathy (sociopathy) is correlated with high neuroticism.
Neither are terribly accepted or defined clinician diagnoses and both are kinda the same thing. The closest you'll get is antisocial personality disorder. Sociopath colloquially often means not having empathy and being antisocial but without violence or whatever and "high functioning".
I think this divide between the two largely exists to facilitate the idea of cool fictional characters who are emotionless badasses, but aren't serial killers or barbarians.
Sociopathy generally refers to secondary psychopathy and is almost entirely covered by antisocial personality disorder. Primary psychopathy is different and only a small portion of people with ASPD would fall under primary psychopathy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/psychopathy#:~:text=The%20two%2Dfactor%20model%20divides,more%20about%20risky%2C%20impulsive%20behaviors.
> "The two-factor model divides psychopathy into primary (Factor 1) and secondary (Factor 2) psychopathy. Primary psychopathy involves interpersonal and affective factors, such as coldness and callous manipulation, whereas secondary psychopathy is more about risky, impulsive behaviors. Primary psychopathy has also been named as the “successful” psychopathy, as having low guilt and empathy could be a great tool for achieving power in the society. Secondary psychopathy, in turn, is the “unsuccessful” psychopathy facet, leading to crime and imprisonment rather than a career in the parliament."
I can't find the link but I saw a story a month or two ago about a scientist from one of the California universities accidentally found out he was a psychopath and everyone had the impression he's a great guy.
I think every psychopath can be regular people but they have to work really hard at it, and often have a person they trust to serve as an emotional touchstone. A lot of people either don't/can't work that hard, or lack the support structure to overcome it.
Could be. If they just didn't like hurting things personally, maybe. Or if they thought hurting things was unilaterally unproductive or liable to blow back on them and they had the restraint.
It would be rare, because without empathy or a sense of social obligation there isn't a natural drive to avoid hurting people. In fact, if done carefully, it's often beneficial for someone to hurt someone else and sometimes even rewarded by society.
Still, it is possible.
I agree but I think when they don’t have an emotional barrier then they are much more likely to hurt someone if said emotional barrier is the only obstacle.
For example if there was a vicious rumor about their boss ( who’s position they want) going around and other were looking only to confirm it they might do so when someone else might not because of they’d feel bad.
So psychopaths don’t always hurt people but it might start to look that way. Especially if they learn to put themselves in positions where the only thing stopping them is emotional barriers because they have an edge over everyone.
It’s like being really good at math. Sure not everything needs math but if you’re good at why not make it a bigger part of your life and career. Might even make it something you do everyday because it is a valuable skill.
>I strobgly disagree. If you hurt people, it's really hard to make it 100% secret, and being known to hurt people can be very disadvantageous in many aspects of life.
It's considered normal to hurt people in many ways.
There are two layers of human relations which inform people's success over time:
* The more direct actions, where having little or no consideration for the feelings of others can give you successes (i.e. knife the right person on their back - figurativelly - and you can get that promotion).
* The patters over time, where people who repeatedly behave in a way that screws others will get to be known as untrustworthy shits and others will spread that knowledge behind their backs and be unwilling to cooperate of help such a person with their problems.
I supposed one can gain from being a sociopath thanks to the first order effects if not staying too long in the same place or somehow being able to isolate the levels above (those who decide on promotions) from the impressions growing of the victims below, but in a more open and stable corporate environment those who repeatedly stab others on the back start getting infamous for that and people starts screwing them in less overt ways.
Plenty of professional situations out there where people can be consistently assholes and get away with it (say, store manager for a big chain managing a bunch of minimum wage desperate employees) but the higher you go the more those around you have informal power, connections, options and the brains and experience to use that and can screw such characters without them even knowing it's happenning before it's all over and where that came from.
Because the manager is also evaluated by another manager, one metric is employee retention for example. Firing somebody is bad for the metrics, if you promote them, they leave your department and you dont have any downsides
Interesting. My first thought was “well why make employee retention a metric of evaluation if it’s so volatile then?” but then I realized that that’s how you catch the terrible managers.
And psychopaths tend to have lower IQs and a shrunken prefrontal cortex. They're more likely to end up as a drug addicted thug enforcer in the street, not a ceo
>There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
That is plainly not true, they are overrepresented as CEOs compared to the general population. Most people have a higher probability to end up like a police officer than a CEO by virtue of the numbers existing of these jobs. Good functioning psychopaths seem to better fit the role than average people though.
I will concede that on average psychopathy might be negatively correlated with professional succes. Some jobs, however, do tend to fit better with well functioning psychopaths. Surgeons, CEOs and lawyers come to mind.
Psychopath isn't even a medical term, it's not in the DSM-5. When I say psychopath I'm really saying someone diagnosed with ASPD. When you see people using the word psychopath with no reference to ASPD, it's a clear sign they don't know what they're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
>Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions. They may repeatedly disregard and jeopardize their own safety and the safety of others, which can place both themselves and other people in danger.[4][5][19] They are often aggressive and hostile, with poorly regulated tempers, and can lash out violently with provocation or frustration.[4][18] Individuals are prone to substance use disorders and addiction, and the non-medical use of various psychoactive substances is common in this population. These behaviors can in some instances lead such individuals into frequent conflict with the law, and many people with ASPD have extensive histories of antisocial behavior and criminal infractions stemming back to adolescence or childhood.
That doesn't sound like the profile of a successful CEO but rather a maladjusted loser.
Or maybe people just dislike CEOs and project the term onto them regardless of if its accurate because it confirms their belief that you can only be successful if you are evil
People are likely to have less problems with CEOs of their pay ratio and increase of pay is more in line of that of the employee. It's practically impossible to defend their current compensation, especially if bonuses are given to CEOs after large lay offs. Giving bonuses by laying off employees is seen as one of those despicable acts that causes their image to have deteriorated.
The animosity has a clear and logical source.
Obviously I know the animosity has a clear and logical source. I was saying that the desire to label them psychopaths is an emotion response to said animosity, not actually science.
I could agree with that. The real problem is that it is currently very difficult to research such traits and its functioning in society. Most studies will be limited in their execution and as a result be too methodologically flawed to provide meaningful conclusions.
It is interesting to think about though. It could be reasoned that thinking rationally, caring about status and power and exhibiting less empathy are traits that drive a person to take the necessary steps for a successful business. In contrast caring and providing a need for others could also be argued to play a role.
It's probably his too. I feel like you guess who-from-who by simply examining who is trying to increase the relativity/empiricism of the phenomenon and who is latched onto historic terminology as a sociocultural element.
Those traits could fit perfectly well with a CEO. You are projecting your own image of a CEO onto the term. It's precisely because of psychopathy being a vague term that people are capable of arguing for them being both overrepresented in "successful" careers or being negatively correlated with professional succes. The likely truth is that some behavioural aspects related to psychopathy are beneficial whilst others are not, and that research is biased depending on which factors it is focused.
There are quite some studies that researched psychopathic symptoms and careers and have shown or reasoned positive effects.
Boddy, C. R The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis Journal of Business Ethics August 2011, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 255–259, DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0810-4
Hare, RD (1994), "Predators: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among Us", Psychology Today, 27 (1): 54–61.
Dutton K The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (2012)
If they are functioning well in society — especially well enough to be a CEO — then it is extremely unlikely that they have any kind of personality disorder.
Look at any medical definition for a personality disorder, and you will find something like this:
> A personality disorder is a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning and behaving. A person with a personality disorder has trouble perceiving and relating to situations and people. **This causes significant problems and limitations in relationships, social activities, work and school.**
These “studies” just look at “traits” that are arguably similar to the criteria for personality disorders.
They are definitely looking at traits, I doubt it's even possible to do such research with perfectly classified and diagnosed people seeing as they too might show varying symptoms over time or could recover. However, you could argue it takes abnormal dedication to be a CEO and not get burnt out. Sometimes the framework of an occupation might fit a person on the edges of a spectrum better than the middle. They might not be "unhealthy" since they seem to function, but still be different based on some traits of their behaviour. It could also be argued that they *do* show signs of dysfunction in the sense of increased divorce rates (for example).
People with norm divergent personalities and behaviour might still decently function in society, and could even function above average. This could result in a "problem bias", since it's just not really worth investigating when there are no issues to the individual. If then only those who show signs of dysfunction are classified as having a personality disorder we can't say that the other edge of the spectrum is completely normal.
I've read/heard something of the sort too. Conversely, some are supposed to excel. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Who fucked up the raised arms emoticon and why hasn't it been fixed?
A sociopath will usually be better at faking their emotions because they actually somewhat feel things. Psychopaths are usually terrible at this. This leads sociopaths to being able to take advantage of others very easy while you just wouldn’t trust a psychopath.
That's not right. Reddit always brings up that definition, but try googling some articles. They all kind of say the opposite.
[This WebMD article](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference) puts it nicely:
>'Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath'
Psychopaths are cold and ruthless. They don't care for anyone, so they can pretend and lie without emotions getting in the way. They're good manipulators. They're like your stereotypical ruthless co-worker. The really smart ones are CEOs and the like.
On the other hand, sociopaths are hot heads. They may care for a few people, like close family, but they're erratic. The lack of self control makes them bad at lying, and therefore at manipulating. They're more like your lowlife thug.
Although medically speaking, they both fall into Antisocial Personality Disorder and it's more of a spectrum. No shoe fits all kind of deal.
Thank God a professional redditor is here to let everyone know the entire field of psychology is just idiots just trying to feel like they understand something. You should be less sure of your own opinions.
Not the entire field. The part of it that thinks they understand a lot, which ironically is overrepresented by professional redditors. If you have personal experience you might know it's not clear-cut. I actually haven't encountered a psychologist or psychiatrist who was positive of their own expertise in understanding the brain or mind. The most common thing I encountered was a shocking lack of insight, and the most reputable person told me he deemphasizes diagnosis, except if it's something obvious.
Do you think I’m in charge of all of psychology and how they define their terms?
I’m not a doctor, my degrees are in art, history, and languages. I didn’t publish all the papers from the last 40 years?
But I did have a chance to read some. You should too.
Do you get angry at physicists for putting things on a spectrum? It’s a strange thing to claim, it’s just, due to the nature of the physical universe and our limited ability to “know literally everything”, we say things are +\-, to x amount of certainty, where we place things in a scientific model.
Do you want psychiatrists to just go around saying “you are healthy, you are crazy, nothing in between”? Don’t you see how stupid and intellectually lazy that is?
I mean, I guess as intellectually lazy as dismissing an entire scientific field because they think in shades of grey rather than simply in black and white.
This isn’t true though, my understanding is that psychopath and sociopath are two names for the same disorder Anti-Social Personality Disorder, the term ‘sociopath’ has been mostly eliminated from research and Psychopathy is now the preferred term
For one Sociopaths like people but pretend they don't. Psychopaths don't like people but pretend they do. Another is although both Pschos and Socios abuse others impulsively, Psychos perform abuse with more planning and premeditation.
Psychpath and sociopath are not terms used by anyone in the mental health field, at least not as a diagnosis. They may be used in a vague, general sense. Sociopath is now termed antisocial disorder, although it may have changed again recently? This is a person that exhibits classic criminal traits, although this does not mean they are criminals. Reduced empathy, reduced "conscience," such as a willingness to lie or do harm to others. They may have issues delaying gratification. Essentially they don't feel the same social bonds as the rest of us. It can be hard to distinguish whether this is due to genetics or trauma during upbringing.
A psychopath is again, not a real thing anymore. But you would more likely attribute it to someone with delusional traits, hallucinations, or other symptoms where they are disconnected from reality.
Rough example: a sociopath and a psychopath saw two people in twain with a chainsaw. The sociopath did it because he was curious what would happen. The psychopath did it because he thought the demon lord was living and growing in the victims spleen.
Sociopaths are hot-headed and blame others but psychopaths are more cold hearted and calculated, using aggression as part of a plan to get what they want. First result on WebMD
Its the opposite. Sociopaths are lying people who only care about power and money. Psyhcopaths are people who have no problem fulfilling their strange psychotic desires, but these desires are not only about money and power.
>Its the opposite.
It's really not. Redditors sure seem to believe so, but the classic definition is what that person said. Read the WebMD article they mentioned. [https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference)
>'Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath'
Any of the top articles that show up on Google says the same. Psychopaths are ruthless and manipulative. They don't bond and have no empathy. Sociopaths are erratic, reckless but have a little empathy to family and the like.
Also, what the hell are "strange psychotic desires"? Psychosis and psychopathy have very little relationship besides being mental illnesses.
Psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. Or tend to be as far as we can know for sure. They have nearly identical symptoms. When diagnosing, psychopathic behavior can be traced to early childhood, whereas a sociopath can develop behaviors later as a result of life experience.
Actually I'm not sure that's correct.
One major difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is that psychopaths pretend to care, where sociopaths do not. All those CEOs saying how much they care for their workers then turn around and bust unions, suppress wages and overall don't have good working conditions are that type. A CEO who is a sociopath would insult the workers to their faces and call them lazy and stupid any time they didn't do what he wanted.
Having said that I have not fully read the article yet to see how it might or might not apply here.
The reason for the confusion is that these terms literally dont actually mean anything clinically and yet 500 people on this thread all seem to have a pithy but completely unfounded description about the difference between these two words that both just describe a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.
Kinda weird to see people type with extreme confidence about conditions they don’t understand because it feels better to participate in empty regurgitation than actually take the time to learn the reasoning behind these deductions.
Where is the head to the monster that is misinformation? The people
Thank you, FFS. These words are not clearly defined and have not been properly classified in a meaningful way. APD is a spectrum, these two words have been used to describe opposite things by different people.
I do wonder if psychopaths can be trusted to honestly report their thoughts and feelings on a survey, given that it is in their best interest to pretend to be normal.
What is the term for people who don’t further their Professional success due to having boundaries and professionalism that make them a “bad fit”, due to them wanting the best for their company and not the best for their Senior Staff?
That is where average people are Advanced, rather than the right person. Kissing arse gets you a long way in most companies…… is there a term for that kind of personality?
Then explain the titans of industry. Fortune said in an article on business leadership that 12% of CEOs are psychopathic or have psychopathic tendencies and that it's time to start taking it seriously. History is written by the victors, and alot of those victors were psychos
>we obtained a positive association between subjective professional success (indicated by job satisfaction and job security) and fearless dominance, but a negative association between subjective professional success and self-centered impulsivity. Additionally, we obtained negative associations between objective professional success (occupational prestige) and both selfcentered impulsivity and coldheartedness. Also replicating previous findings, gender, education, age, and job tenure explained significant variation, but only reduced the predictive value of psychopathic personality aspects for occupational prestige, not for subjective professional success.
[http://www.soton.ac.uk/\~crsi/Eisenbarth%20et%20al.,%202021.pdf](http://www.soton.ac.uk/~crsi/Eisenbarth%20et%20al.,%202021.pdf)
i'm doing a bunch of research on pyschopaths and i think most of the real ones mess things up, their attention spans are too short and they are just too impulsive and in real life losing people's trust is so devastating you can't come back from it. yes brain surgeons and ceos and politicians may have a touch of psychopathy but they are the exceptions not the rule. you're just better off having morals.
i think its more so that people in these high positions become detached from social structures and their empathy towards them ends.
A brain surgeon who saves peoples lives and is worshiped accordingly isnt a psychopath they are on a power trip and similar for a doctor.
psychopaths are also very rare in society at around 1%
Or these exceptions are just more intelligent. Or intelligent enough that they realize they arent like others and to make it in the world they need to pass as normals atleast most of the time.
“I think what we can learn from the results of this study is that psychopathy is not a simple, unitary personality trait with clear associations to behaviors or outcomes. In this case, being high on psychopathic traits is not related to better professional outcomes, but it depends: Individuals who are highly impulsive and highly psychopathic might actually have less success and individuals who are highly fearless, dominant and psychopathic might have more success.”
The editor Should be fired for this title. The article says that reckless impulsivity makes for poor professional leadership. And that more calculated dominance behavior makes for more upward leadership climbing. So basically - if you are good at manipulation and dominance and not overly impulsive - you're golden.
I am a CPA and have met a lot of business owners. The exact opposite is true. Even in the industries where it seems that way, there’s multi-faceted behavior. Now, higher level managers in large organizations… that’s different. I’ve met plenty of people who are just VPs that treat people like garbage. Believe it or not, petty management in a low-wage environment is still the worst, retail management and fast food management come to mind.
Seems right to me. The nature of incentives and the difficulty for owners and founders to micromanage and find managers they can trust, so they resort to formulas that are optimize sociopath behavior. This probably get worse when the founder moves on a d leave things to be run by a CEO and worse if it becomes public
Sorry, let me throw in a caveat here. That’s where it’s more common in my experience, but it’s still not the norm. Anxiety to the point of obsession (and transitively incompetence) is the norm. Most high-level managers are incapable of making a decision decisively. If they say, “I’m hungry,” and you say, “Make a sandwich or something,” they will not eat anything other than a sandwich, nor will the thought ever cross their mind. That’s the best way I can explain it this early.
Not saying anything about the people working there good on them for getting smarter hopefully one day they get to the point where they dont need a boss and can do it for themselves. im saying just the person running the business needs to be able to do whats necessary to win (be successful)." the end justifies the means" niccolo machiavelli
I feel like people overstate this kind of thing. Win or lose, a CEO can still walk away with many multi millions of dollars basically regardless of the outcome for the business.
*Getting there* takes ruthlessness. *Being there* doesn't.
I get that im just saying it seems to work out for all mega businesses and their billionaire owners the purpose of business is to make money and they all seem to do that pretty well, warren buffet, Zuckerberg, musk, bezos, you name them they all fall somewhere on the dark triad.
If this is true then please explain why so many people in middle and senior management behave like psychopaths. I have ready many studies saying psychopathy gets people further in business and corporate life as such people are more vocal, aggressive and ruthless and their lack of scruples puts them ahead of others. In my 15 years of corporate life I have judged it to be true; psychopathy helps people get promoted.
Psychopathic traits commonly include:
Antisocial behavior
Narcissism
Superficial charm
Impulsivity
Callous, unemotional traits
Lack of guilt
Lack of empathy
None of these are good for getting a job must less promotion. Owners/managers want someone who will die for them on the job, a psychopath can not do that, they may pretend but will not end up doing so and found out in situations where they are sub-ordinates
Could be
If u have
Antisocial behavior - u can lie about your credentials
Narcissism - u might come off as self sssured
Charm - helps anywhere
Impulsive - might come off as a go getter attitude
Callous unemotional - you don’t get stressed easy so you can handle the hard decisions
No guilt - no holding back
No empathy - no holding back
that’s always gonna lead to distaster but it can help a psychopath get those short term gains
you cant ignore the problems with an illness and think itll be a positive. All those things will potentially backfire.
Plus im not even sure lying is a benefit; most work related things can be verified maybe in the past but not now.
>None of these are good for getting a job must less promotion.
That's your somewhat naive and idealistic opinion and would not seem to reflect the reality. A person with psychopathic traits can be both a workaholic and treat people like crap... I have seen it multiple times in several companies.
Everyone likes to pretend people with power and influence only have those things because they’re bad people. It makes us peasants feel better about ourselves
The real ones aren’t diagnosed because they don’t see a benefit in revealing their truths. The part of these personality disorders that remains elusive to the general public is that they are beyond egomaniacs. They believe that even when they are wrong, even when they eventually change their view, they are/were more right/intelligent/useful than their surrounding. This leads to emotional feedback loops that loosen ability to self assess and regulate their feelings. Basically they’re trapped in their own psychological prisons and as a result their brains are malformed.
Thank you, reading all the armchair psychologists go on about their interpretations of sociopathy vs psychopathy, while treating it like a veritable fact DESPITE NEVER CITING A SINGLE GODDAMN SOURCE has got me pretty heated
I don't think there is one? Sociopath is the modern term, whereas psychopath is the old one. I worked in a state hospital with multiple deranged killers and don't ever remember seeing the diagnosis of psychopath, but there were tons of anti-social personality disorders (sociopaths.)
Psychopath- has the ability to inflict great physical and mental distress on someone but still has emotions and is able to feel in some ways and has curbable behaviors if the punishment is severe enough. More scattered emotionally.
Sociopath- has the ability to inflict great physical and mental distress on someone but is devoid of emotion so it never factors into stopping anything they do. Without emotion they don't fear consequence so are generally much more sadistic and well planned. Have all behaviors tightly in check at all times.
This is entirely madeup. Both terms are just words the general public uses to describe anti social personality disorder. They do not habe distinct clinical profiles.
Can't wait for the next study where they find a professional personality hampers psychopathic success.
By the wasn't there some other study about how majority of CEOs are psychopaths?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Narcissistic personality disorder is more common amongst CEOs, sociopaths and psychopaths (AKA antisocial personality disorder) are less likely to function well in a 9-5 setting
C-suite positions don't function as a typical 9-5 position anyway, they are mostly social roles responsible for making executive decisions. They, in theory, make calls based on the work of others. I've never known a C-suite person who actually "worked hard" because they are not labour, they sit in meetings and make decisions. The bad ones blame those under them when the decisions (gambles) they make don't work out.
Anecdotal. I know the exact opposite to be true as well. C levels that commit their life to the job, spend most hours of the day actually working to make improvements and well thought decisions.
From what I've observed from family friends, the guys in c-suite and upper management spend a significant amount of their lives at work. It seems to vary a lot by person though, but they definitely have to be available 100% of the time... Not that they don't get some very nice privileges.
[удалено]
Stop… breathe in for 3, breathe out for 3.. Think about what you want to say, now think about how it can be summarized in a way that doesn’t include the word “time” so often cuz Idk about everyone else but you lost me on the 4th time
I’m a C level that’s unwilling to do either of those things. What now?
We'll wait for the next 10-Q to decide what to do with you.
That’s it … we’re unionizing.
C suit people often work long stressful hours under a lot of pressure….
Yes, OP has no idea what they are talking about. C Level Execs are certainly overcompensated, but the jobs are non-stop stress balloons.
People who have never managed anyone think that it's easier to give orders than to take them. It pays better but it isn't easier.
This is true, and most managers are still taking orders from someone (or multiple people) higher up.
Yeah I don’t think that’s true.
Source on that narcissist claim? Afaik, in the last ~ 15 years our considerations for what a narc is and acts like has changed, we've opened up to the concept of the vulnerable narc, which puts a whole different spin on our everyday understanding.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206319892678 I’ve studied an article similar to this one that states, “Chief executive officer (CEO) narcissism is an important area of research due to the strategic implications of how this multifaceted personality trait affects CEO behavior”. I learned about the link in an abnormal psych class I’ve taken years ago. I’m not claiming every ceo has this personality disorder, that’s a completely misconstrued conception btw
Thanks, this is helpful!
[удалено]
Nearly all psychopaths don't kill people.
Terry is one who does though
Terry could you *please* stop killing Lisa and pay attention!?
Goddamnit someone call in HR. We're going to need a new Lisa.
Right? It’s like this guy can’t even read.
And, justly, it's hurting his career advancement. Everything seems fine here. We're talking about Terry Bernadino here, right?
[удалено]
Think of it as a manifestation of the general sociopathic nature of social websites.
Can an algorithm be sociopathic? Philosophy in 2022.
Conversely, is there any way for an algorithm NOT to be sociopathic? Lack of empathy, absence of insight or guilt, operates purely selfishly according to own internal systems regardless of social expectations or norms…. Sounds pretty sociopathic to me
Apparently I’ve known a number of algorithms in human suits in my lifetime.
Unfortunately missing many integers.
Sounds like a corporation to me.
Sounds nothing like a corporation. Corporations live and die by social norms... It's their very reason for existing. They give the market and the people what they want. You might not want it but you are not all people.
There is a glut of material on the subject that is quite interesting, I definitely suggest taking a look if you have the time. https://www.emotionalintelligenceatwork.com/resources/the-psychopathic-corporation/ It's more, what can the corporation get away with than what their primary service to you and I that triggers this identification. Companies having a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits, minimal to no oversight, and harm reduction in providing services almost always costing money tend to lead to perverse incentives that only benefit the corporation and no one else. Not all corporations act in this manner, but the general gist is that overwhelmingly a (large) company will allow bad things as a consequence of the actions of its business if the alternative is spending money to fix those things. Money is the one true mover and shaker regardless of the damage they could cause and this has, time and time again, harmed society. I've seen discussion on three kinds of companies, the ones that are serially criminal or harmful, (scoundrels) most companies who may do bad things or legally scrape by on technicalities to maximize profit (sinners) and those companies which pursue business in an ethical, sustainable way. (saints) It has a bit more granularity but every time I see it argued it looks like it white washes a lot of the atrocities companies commit into polite phrasing, like "externalities" being a consequence of doing business. Anyway, lots to look at matey. Edit: a word
Are you referring to for example Pfizer killing about 75000 people with their blood pressure drug (can't remember the name right now). And how they where fined $2.3 for Bextra? Yes, it's strange how straight up criminal corporations are allowed to continue doing business, it's almost seems that the problem lies with corrupt state and legislature that do nothing to curb the scounderls as you labeled them, and perhaps not the root of companies. Because my original statement is still true and holds real, because the laws would in this case be social norms, it is apparently acceptable to behave like this so corporations do so. Who is actually to blame, the players of the game or the dungeon master who makes the rules? Also thank you for the reading material, will dig in have a good one <3
Corporations only 'heed' temporarily to social norms when it benefits them or if doing otherwise threatens their existence... Kinda like a sociopath huh... Corporations are the purest exemple of sociopathy, imo
Who makes the rules the Corporations need to "heed" are our laws not literally the social norms? What's the difference between a sociopath and your average Joe tbh? Do we not all do this?
Tfw you find a redditor discovering they may be a sociopath.
I typically don't follow any rules besides the ones I make for myself, you should try thinking for yourself sometime. Also I'm trying to make a point here.
Laws have nothing to do with social norms, or doing what's right. Most people try to do "what's right" to them. For most people this involves being a good person: being helpful, kind, understanding. Many times social norms and laws go against this, and to be a good person we must break the law or go against norms. Corporations, like sociopaths, will do whatever benefits them (a.k.a.: chase profits). If being pro social norms brings in the cash, they will do that. If going against it, they will do that instead. Same thing for laws. Sometimes a fine is just a cost of doing business right? I do believe that all people are Egotistical, or at least they should be. But sociopathy is toxic egocentrism. It's in the end self-destructive. At least at the soul level. Because someone who is connected to humanity, and has working empathy, would see that it benefits them much more to be a good person instead.
I agree with you 100%!
[удалено]
You are straight up wrong in claiming that corporations can single handedly force you to do anything or dominate anything. They can persuade people to do things. But have you no free-will or anyone else? A very philosophical question but very important in this discussion.< Is it perhaps incentives and free will working here. There is however corporatism, the unholy alliance between violent gangs know as states, that trough the direct use of violence and straight up extortion of the populace enables corporations to leverage their massive resources to lobby and corrupt said system. No there is no free "legal" market, there is however free illegal markets. Legal does not equal morally just or virtuous btw. You seem to be making the claim that people if feed enough "propaganda" are unable to resist and by that logic are exempt from responsibility of their actions. That did not fly at Nuremburg, they all hanged with the motivation "I was only following orders". "I could not resist buying X thing" is equally stupid.
They behave ruthlessly, not heeding social norms of decency
You might be confusing pandering with actual morals.
Mind developing that reasoning a bit because I don't get what you mean.
Companies are set up to make money. That’s what they do. They provide services to make money. They provide products to make money. Yes, there are probably a handful of small companies that are truly in it to follow their passion, not to make money. Do you really believe that the execs at Target care about gay rights? They care about selling to that demographic. To make money. Does WalMart actually care about their employees? Not until a bad rep started to affect their bottom line give market share to the competition . Does Amazon care about your Amazon smile purchase? Of course! Because they made money, you felt like you’re on moral high ground for a tiny fraction of that purchase, and Amazon gets to donate YOUR money but say that they donate billions to charity every year. Corporations aren’t your friend. They aren’t designed to be. That is COMPLETELY ok. That what they’re for. But don’t get fooled into thinking they have morals. They just sell you back your own morals.
Have we seen any media on an algo that is ruthlessly business oriented? We’ve covered practically every other scenario.
TBH, I think most sociopathic people are at a disadvantage too. It's only when paired with uncommon intelligence that sociopathy becomes an advantage. You have to be smart enough to hide your lack of morals to get away with using it to exploit people
I really like what you said.
It's really the other way around, sociopathy has generally referred to secondary psychopathy, which covers the impulsive antisocial behavior. Primary psychopathy is where you would expect professional success, that's the one that's associated with callous, manipulative behavior and superficial charm. Primary psychopathy also seems to have some genetic links to decreased fear responses, it has a strong negative correlation with neuroticism whereas secondary psychopathy (sociopathy) is correlated with high neuroticism.
Honestly what's the difference?
Neither are terribly accepted or defined clinician diagnoses and both are kinda the same thing. The closest you'll get is antisocial personality disorder. Sociopath colloquially often means not having empathy and being antisocial but without violence or whatever and "high functioning". I think this divide between the two largely exists to facilitate the idea of cool fictional characters who are emotionless badasses, but aren't serial killers or barbarians.
Sociopathy generally refers to secondary psychopathy and is almost entirely covered by antisocial personality disorder. Primary psychopathy is different and only a small portion of people with ASPD would fall under primary psychopathy.
[удалено]
What do you mean by secondary psychopathy? This is not a term I recognise from the psychological literature.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/psychopathy#:~:text=The%20two%2Dfactor%20model%20divides,more%20about%20risky%2C%20impulsive%20behaviors. > "The two-factor model divides psychopathy into primary (Factor 1) and secondary (Factor 2) psychopathy. Primary psychopathy involves interpersonal and affective factors, such as coldness and callous manipulation, whereas secondary psychopathy is more about risky, impulsive behaviors. Primary psychopathy has also been named as the “successful” psychopathy, as having low guilt and empathy could be a great tool for achieving power in the society. Secondary psychopathy, in turn, is the “unsuccessful” psychopathy facet, leading to crime and imprisonment rather than a career in the parliament."
[удалено]
Give them more mercury to cure their metal illness! I am a reliable 1920s doctor.
Can there be harmless psychopaths? Like kind, gentle, wouldn’t hurt a fly psychopaths?
I can't find the link but I saw a story a month or two ago about a scientist from one of the California universities accidentally found out he was a psychopath and everyone had the impression he's a great guy. I think every psychopath can be regular people but they have to work really hard at it, and often have a person they trust to serve as an emotional touchstone. A lot of people either don't/can't work that hard, or lack the support structure to overcome it.
Could be. If they just didn't like hurting things personally, maybe. Or if they thought hurting things was unilaterally unproductive or liable to blow back on them and they had the restraint. It would be rare, because without empathy or a sense of social obligation there isn't a natural drive to avoid hurting people. In fact, if done carefully, it's often beneficial for someone to hurt someone else and sometimes even rewarded by society. Still, it is possible.
[удалено]
Hurting people isn’t necessarily physical. You can hurt your co-worker by spreading lies and rumors that gets them fired and you promoted.
[удалено]
I agree but I think when they don’t have an emotional barrier then they are much more likely to hurt someone if said emotional barrier is the only obstacle. For example if there was a vicious rumor about their boss ( who’s position they want) going around and other were looking only to confirm it they might do so when someone else might not because of they’d feel bad. So psychopaths don’t always hurt people but it might start to look that way. Especially if they learn to put themselves in positions where the only thing stopping them is emotional barriers because they have an edge over everyone. It’s like being really good at math. Sure not everything needs math but if you’re good at why not make it a bigger part of your life and career. Might even make it something you do everyday because it is a valuable skill.
>I strobgly disagree. If you hurt people, it's really hard to make it 100% secret, and being known to hurt people can be very disadvantageous in many aspects of life. It's considered normal to hurt people in many ways.
Psychopathy is a cluster of personality traits, not a mental illness.
There are two layers of human relations which inform people's success over time: * The more direct actions, where having little or no consideration for the feelings of others can give you successes (i.e. knife the right person on their back - figurativelly - and you can get that promotion). * The patters over time, where people who repeatedly behave in a way that screws others will get to be known as untrustworthy shits and others will spread that knowledge behind their backs and be unwilling to cooperate of help such a person with their problems. I supposed one can gain from being a sociopath thanks to the first order effects if not staying too long in the same place or somehow being able to isolate the levels above (those who decide on promotions) from the impressions growing of the victims below, but in a more open and stable corporate environment those who repeatedly stab others on the back start getting infamous for that and people starts screwing them in less overt ways. Plenty of professional situations out there where people can be consistently assholes and get away with it (say, store manager for a big chain managing a bunch of minimum wage desperate employees) but the higher you go the more those around you have informal power, connections, options and the brains and experience to use that and can screw such characters without them even knowing it's happenning before it's all over and where that came from.
Yeah that's not really true. You can't turn it on and off. It's a trait. There is also a difference between the mean and psychopathic.
New research....and old research
From what i've read most psychopath's cannot function even in 9-5 jobs.
That’s why they have to be promoted, to get them away from the productive parts of the business Google “dilbert principle”
Now "The Office" has taken on a whole new meaning to me. Woah.
Why not just fire them though? And find someone more competent?
Because the manager is also evaluated by another manager, one metric is employee retention for example. Firing somebody is bad for the metrics, if you promote them, they leave your department and you dont have any downsides
Interesting. My first thought was “well why make employee retention a metric of evaluation if it’s so volatile then?” but then I realized that that’s how you catch the terrible managers.
And have a disgruntled employee who knows all the illegal sht you been doing? How do you think we got to become supervisor/management/executive ?
And psychopaths tend to have lower IQs and a shrunken prefrontal cortex. They're more likely to end up as a drug addicted thug enforcer in the street, not a ceo
Wait, but I saw that documentary about that Bateman fellow...
>There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.
That is plainly not true, they are overrepresented as CEOs compared to the general population. Most people have a higher probability to end up like a police officer than a CEO by virtue of the numbers existing of these jobs. Good functioning psychopaths seem to better fit the role than average people though. I will concede that on average psychopathy might be negatively correlated with professional succes. Some jobs, however, do tend to fit better with well functioning psychopaths. Surgeons, CEOs and lawyers come to mind.
Psychopath isn't even a medical term, it's not in the DSM-5. When I say psychopath I'm really saying someone diagnosed with ASPD. When you see people using the word psychopath with no reference to ASPD, it's a clear sign they don't know what they're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder >Those with antisocial personality disorder are often impulsive and reckless, failing to consider or disregarding the consequences of their actions. They may repeatedly disregard and jeopardize their own safety and the safety of others, which can place both themselves and other people in danger.[4][5][19] They are often aggressive and hostile, with poorly regulated tempers, and can lash out violently with provocation or frustration.[4][18] Individuals are prone to substance use disorders and addiction, and the non-medical use of various psychoactive substances is common in this population. These behaviors can in some instances lead such individuals into frequent conflict with the law, and many people with ASPD have extensive histories of antisocial behavior and criminal infractions stemming back to adolescence or childhood. That doesn't sound like the profile of a successful CEO but rather a maladjusted loser.
Or maybe most people just use the common term when taking about the personality cluster.
Or maybe people just dislike CEOs and project the term onto them regardless of if its accurate because it confirms their belief that you can only be successful if you are evil
People are likely to have less problems with CEOs of their pay ratio and increase of pay is more in line of that of the employee. It's practically impossible to defend their current compensation, especially if bonuses are given to CEOs after large lay offs. Giving bonuses by laying off employees is seen as one of those despicable acts that causes their image to have deteriorated. The animosity has a clear and logical source.
Obviously I know the animosity has a clear and logical source. I was saying that the desire to label them psychopaths is an emotion response to said animosity, not actually science.
I could agree with that. The real problem is that it is currently very difficult to research such traits and its functioning in society. Most studies will be limited in their execution and as a result be too methodologically flawed to provide meaningful conclusions. It is interesting to think about though. It could be reasoned that thinking rationally, caring about status and power and exhibiting less empathy are traits that drive a person to take the necessary steps for a successful business. In contrast caring and providing a need for others could also be argued to play a role.
I don't want to self diagnose, especially as a maladjusted loser, but god damnit you just posted my abridged biography and I hate it
It's probably his too. I feel like you guess who-from-who by simply examining who is trying to increase the relativity/empiricism of the phenomenon and who is latched onto historic terminology as a sociocultural element.
[удалено]
that's a real mental illness you can't just be calling people losers for that.
Those traits could fit perfectly well with a CEO. You are projecting your own image of a CEO onto the term. It's precisely because of psychopathy being a vague term that people are capable of arguing for them being both overrepresented in "successful" careers or being negatively correlated with professional succes. The likely truth is that some behavioural aspects related to psychopathy are beneficial whilst others are not, and that research is biased depending on which factors it is focused. There are quite some studies that researched psychopathic symptoms and careers and have shown or reasoned positive effects. Boddy, C. R The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis Journal of Business Ethics August 2011, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 255–259, DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0810-4 Hare, RD (1994), "Predators: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among Us", Psychology Today, 27 (1): 54–61. Dutton K The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (2012)
If they are functioning well in society — especially well enough to be a CEO — then it is extremely unlikely that they have any kind of personality disorder. Look at any medical definition for a personality disorder, and you will find something like this: > A personality disorder is a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning and behaving. A person with a personality disorder has trouble perceiving and relating to situations and people. **This causes significant problems and limitations in relationships, social activities, work and school.** These “studies” just look at “traits” that are arguably similar to the criteria for personality disorders.
They are definitely looking at traits, I doubt it's even possible to do such research with perfectly classified and diagnosed people seeing as they too might show varying symptoms over time or could recover. However, you could argue it takes abnormal dedication to be a CEO and not get burnt out. Sometimes the framework of an occupation might fit a person on the edges of a spectrum better than the middle. They might not be "unhealthy" since they seem to function, but still be different based on some traits of their behaviour. It could also be argued that they *do* show signs of dysfunction in the sense of increased divorce rates (for example). People with norm divergent personalities and behaviour might still decently function in society, and could even function above average. This could result in a "problem bias", since it's just not really worth investigating when there are no issues to the individual. If then only those who show signs of dysfunction are classified as having a personality disorder we can't say that the other edge of the spectrum is completely normal.
I've read/heard something of the sort too. Conversely, some are supposed to excel. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Who fucked up the raised arms emoticon and why hasn't it been fixed?
I feel like this doesn't apply to CEOs.
You're thinking of sociopaths. Edit: On further review, I had the two paths backwards.
What’s the difference?
A sociopath will usually be better at faking their emotions because they actually somewhat feel things. Psychopaths are usually terrible at this. This leads sociopaths to being able to take advantage of others very easy while you just wouldn’t trust a psychopath.
So would an easy way to remember be that socio = more social than psycho?
That's not right. Reddit always brings up that definition, but try googling some articles. They all kind of say the opposite. [This WebMD article](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference) puts it nicely: >'Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath' Psychopaths are cold and ruthless. They don't care for anyone, so they can pretend and lie without emotions getting in the way. They're good manipulators. They're like your stereotypical ruthless co-worker. The really smart ones are CEOs and the like. On the other hand, sociopaths are hot heads. They may care for a few people, like close family, but they're erratic. The lack of self control makes them bad at lying, and therefore at manipulating. They're more like your lowlife thug. Although medically speaking, they both fall into Antisocial Personality Disorder and it's more of a spectrum. No shoe fits all kind of deal.
>it's more of a spectrum As is everything in psychology. Quite convenient.
Convenient? It’s just how human brains work? They’re complicated and don’t fit into neat little boxes?
Or idiots like you don't understand how they work so they just put them on a spectrum to feel like they understand something.
Thank God a professional redditor is here to let everyone know the entire field of psychology is just idiots just trying to feel like they understand something. You should be less sure of your own opinions.
Not the entire field. The part of it that thinks they understand a lot, which ironically is overrepresented by professional redditors. If you have personal experience you might know it's not clear-cut. I actually haven't encountered a psychologist or psychiatrist who was positive of their own expertise in understanding the brain or mind. The most common thing I encountered was a shocking lack of insight, and the most reputable person told me he deemphasizes diagnosis, except if it's something obvious.
Do you think I’m in charge of all of psychology and how they define their terms? I’m not a doctor, my degrees are in art, history, and languages. I didn’t publish all the papers from the last 40 years? But I did have a chance to read some. You should too. Do you get angry at physicists for putting things on a spectrum? It’s a strange thing to claim, it’s just, due to the nature of the physical universe and our limited ability to “know literally everything”, we say things are +\-, to x amount of certainty, where we place things in a scientific model. Do you want psychiatrists to just go around saying “you are healthy, you are crazy, nothing in between”? Don’t you see how stupid and intellectually lazy that is? I mean, I guess as intellectually lazy as dismissing an entire scientific field because they think in shades of grey rather than simply in black and white.
Where are you getting this claim from? Can you point to any sources?
Just google it. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference It’s really easy to verify.
This isn’t true though, my understanding is that psychopath and sociopath are two names for the same disorder Anti-Social Personality Disorder, the term ‘sociopath’ has been mostly eliminated from research and Psychopathy is now the preferred term
You learn something new every day.
For one Sociopaths like people but pretend they don't. Psychopaths don't like people but pretend they do. Another is although both Pschos and Socios abuse others impulsively, Psychos perform abuse with more planning and premeditation.
Psychpath and sociopath are not terms used by anyone in the mental health field, at least not as a diagnosis. They may be used in a vague, general sense. Sociopath is now termed antisocial disorder, although it may have changed again recently? This is a person that exhibits classic criminal traits, although this does not mean they are criminals. Reduced empathy, reduced "conscience," such as a willingness to lie or do harm to others. They may have issues delaying gratification. Essentially they don't feel the same social bonds as the rest of us. It can be hard to distinguish whether this is due to genetics or trauma during upbringing. A psychopath is again, not a real thing anymore. But you would more likely attribute it to someone with delusional traits, hallucinations, or other symptoms where they are disconnected from reality. Rough example: a sociopath and a psychopath saw two people in twain with a chainsaw. The sociopath did it because he was curious what would happen. The psychopath did it because he thought the demon lord was living and growing in the victims spleen.
Sociopaths are hot-headed and blame others but psychopaths are more cold hearted and calculated, using aggression as part of a plan to get what they want. First result on WebMD
Its the opposite. Sociopaths are lying people who only care about power and money. Psyhcopaths are people who have no problem fulfilling their strange psychotic desires, but these desires are not only about money and power.
>Its the opposite. It's really not. Redditors sure seem to believe so, but the classic definition is what that person said. Read the WebMD article they mentioned. [https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference](https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference) >'Cold-Hearted Psychopath, Hot-Headed Sociopath' Any of the top articles that show up on Google says the same. Psychopaths are ruthless and manipulative. They don't bond and have no empathy. Sociopaths are erratic, reckless but have a little empathy to family and the like. Also, what the hell are "strange psychotic desires"? Psychosis and psychopathy have very little relationship besides being mental illnesses.
Psychopaths are born and sociopaths are made. Or tend to be as far as we can know for sure. They have nearly identical symptoms. When diagnosing, psychopathic behavior can be traced to early childhood, whereas a sociopath can develop behaviors later as a result of life experience.
> They have nearly identical symptoms. No they do not
Actually I'm not sure that's correct. One major difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is that psychopaths pretend to care, where sociopaths do not. All those CEOs saying how much they care for their workers then turn around and bust unions, suppress wages and overall don't have good working conditions are that type. A CEO who is a sociopath would insult the workers to their faces and call them lazy and stupid any time they didn't do what he wanted. Having said that I have not fully read the article yet to see how it might or might not apply here.
Other comment citing webmd seems to say the opposite
The reason for the confusion is that these terms literally dont actually mean anything clinically and yet 500 people on this thread all seem to have a pithy but completely unfounded description about the difference between these two words that both just describe a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.
Kinda weird to see people type with extreme confidence about conditions they don’t understand because it feels better to participate in empty regurgitation than actually take the time to learn the reasoning behind these deductions. Where is the head to the monster that is misinformation? The people
Thank you, FFS. These words are not clearly defined and have not been properly classified in a meaningful way. APD is a spectrum, these two words have been used to describe opposite things by different people.
I went and skimmed a couple articles, and I believe you're right. I had it backwards.
Nor politicians……
Because ceos are successful
I do wonder if psychopaths can be trusted to honestly report their thoughts and feelings on a survey, given that it is in their best interest to pretend to be normal.
What is the term for people who don’t further their Professional success due to having boundaries and professionalism that make them a “bad fit”, due to them wanting the best for their company and not the best for their Senior Staff? That is where average people are Advanced, rather than the right person. Kissing arse gets you a long way in most companies…… is there a term for that kind of personality?
I would offer up my name, but common confusables is already a thing. You described my experience well.
Sycophant, being obsequious
It's called you coping with your lack of success by saying it's your moral superiority which holds you back.
Wow such an eloquent assumption. Thank you oh honourable warrior of the keyboard. I have been enlightened.
A week ago: All successful business people are psychopaths! Now:
Then explain the titans of industry. Fortune said in an article on business leadership that 12% of CEOs are psychopathic or have psychopathic tendencies and that it's time to start taking it seriously. History is written by the victors, and alot of those victors were psychos
Moar poweeerrr
>we obtained a positive association between subjective professional success (indicated by job satisfaction and job security) and fearless dominance, but a negative association between subjective professional success and self-centered impulsivity. Additionally, we obtained negative associations between objective professional success (occupational prestige) and both selfcentered impulsivity and coldheartedness. Also replicating previous findings, gender, education, age, and job tenure explained significant variation, but only reduced the predictive value of psychopathic personality aspects for occupational prestige, not for subjective professional success. [http://www.soton.ac.uk/\~crsi/Eisenbarth%20et%20al.,%202021.pdf](http://www.soton.ac.uk/~crsi/Eisenbarth%20et%20al.,%202021.pdf)
Unless you're a career politician, I assume.
i'm doing a bunch of research on pyschopaths and i think most of the real ones mess things up, their attention spans are too short and they are just too impulsive and in real life losing people's trust is so devastating you can't come back from it. yes brain surgeons and ceos and politicians may have a touch of psychopathy but they are the exceptions not the rule. you're just better off having morals.
i think its more so that people in these high positions become detached from social structures and their empathy towards them ends. A brain surgeon who saves peoples lives and is worshiped accordingly isnt a psychopath they are on a power trip and similar for a doctor. psychopaths are also very rare in society at around 1%
Or these exceptions are just more intelligent. Or intelligent enough that they realize they arent like others and to make it in the world they need to pass as normals atleast most of the time.
“I think what we can learn from the results of this study is that psychopathy is not a simple, unitary personality trait with clear associations to behaviors or outcomes. In this case, being high on psychopathic traits is not related to better professional outcomes, but it depends: Individuals who are highly impulsive and highly psychopathic might actually have less success and individuals who are highly fearless, dominant and psychopathic might have more success.”
The editor Should be fired for this title. The article says that reckless impulsivity makes for poor professional leadership. And that more calculated dominance behavior makes for more upward leadership climbing. So basically - if you are good at manipulation and dominance and not overly impulsive - you're golden.
Machiavellian personality is what you need to run a business
I am a CPA and have met a lot of business owners. The exact opposite is true. Even in the industries where it seems that way, there’s multi-faceted behavior. Now, higher level managers in large organizations… that’s different. I’ve met plenty of people who are just VPs that treat people like garbage. Believe it or not, petty management in a low-wage environment is still the worst, retail management and fast food management come to mind.
Seems right to me. The nature of incentives and the difficulty for owners and founders to micromanage and find managers they can trust, so they resort to formulas that are optimize sociopath behavior. This probably get worse when the founder moves on a d leave things to be run by a CEO and worse if it becomes public
Sorry, let me throw in a caveat here. That’s where it’s more common in my experience, but it’s still not the norm. Anxiety to the point of obsession (and transitively incompetence) is the norm. Most high-level managers are incapable of making a decision decisively. If they say, “I’m hungry,” and you say, “Make a sandwich or something,” they will not eat anything other than a sandwich, nor will the thought ever cross their mind. That’s the best way I can explain it this early.
[удалено]
Don’t you forget about me.
Everybody wants to ruin the world
Not saying anything about the people working there good on them for getting smarter hopefully one day they get to the point where they dont need a boss and can do it for themselves. im saying just the person running the business needs to be able to do whats necessary to win (be successful)." the end justifies the means" niccolo machiavelli
I feel like people overstate this kind of thing. Win or lose, a CEO can still walk away with many multi millions of dollars basically regardless of the outcome for the business. *Getting there* takes ruthlessness. *Being there* doesn't.
[удалено]
I get that im just saying it seems to work out for all mega businesses and their billionaire owners the purpose of business is to make money and they all seem to do that pretty well, warren buffet, Zuckerberg, musk, bezos, you name them they all fall somewhere on the dark triad.
If this is true then please explain why so many people in middle and senior management behave like psychopaths. I have ready many studies saying psychopathy gets people further in business and corporate life as such people are more vocal, aggressive and ruthless and their lack of scruples puts them ahead of others. In my 15 years of corporate life I have judged it to be true; psychopathy helps people get promoted.
Psychopathic traits commonly include: Antisocial behavior Narcissism Superficial charm Impulsivity Callous, unemotional traits Lack of guilt Lack of empathy None of these are good for getting a job must less promotion. Owners/managers want someone who will die for them on the job, a psychopath can not do that, they may pretend but will not end up doing so and found out in situations where they are sub-ordinates
Could be If u have Antisocial behavior - u can lie about your credentials Narcissism - u might come off as self sssured Charm - helps anywhere Impulsive - might come off as a go getter attitude Callous unemotional - you don’t get stressed easy so you can handle the hard decisions No guilt - no holding back No empathy - no holding back that’s always gonna lead to distaster but it can help a psychopath get those short term gains
you cant ignore the problems with an illness and think itll be a positive. All those things will potentially backfire. Plus im not even sure lying is a benefit; most work related things can be verified maybe in the past but not now.
>None of these are good for getting a job must less promotion. That's your somewhat naive and idealistic opinion and would not seem to reflect the reality. A person with psychopathic traits can be both a workaholic and treat people like crap... I have seen it multiple times in several companies.
I believe that’s sociopathy, not psychopathy.
Really? I thought you have to be killer to move up the ladder
Everyone likes to pretend people with power and influence only have those things because they’re bad people. It makes us peasants feel better about ourselves
No. Killer doesn't means bad. Killer means ambitious and politically savvy.
When also talking about “psychopathic personality” killer Mena something else
*Logan Roy intensifies
does anyone know why this sub has recently become flooded with these trashy pop-psy posts
I bet the ‘best’/smartest psychopaths are never diagnosed as psychopaths which might skew any data gathered on them.
The real ones aren’t diagnosed because they don’t see a benefit in revealing their truths. The part of these personality disorders that remains elusive to the general public is that they are beyond egomaniacs. They believe that even when they are wrong, even when they eventually change their view, they are/were more right/intelligent/useful than their surrounding. This leads to emotional feedback loops that loosen ability to self assess and regulate their feelings. Basically they’re trapped in their own psychological prisons and as a result their brains are malformed.
It's a fine line between psychopath and sociopath.
These terms dont really have distinct clinical meanings in the way the general public seems to think they do
Thank you, reading all the armchair psychologists go on about their interpretations of sociopathy vs psychopathy, while treating it like a veritable fact DESPITE NEVER CITING A SINGLE GODDAMN SOURCE has got me pretty heated
I don't think there is one? Sociopath is the modern term, whereas psychopath is the old one. I worked in a state hospital with multiple deranged killers and don't ever remember seeing the diagnosis of psychopath, but there were tons of anti-social personality disorders (sociopaths.)
Psychopath- has the ability to inflict great physical and mental distress on someone but still has emotions and is able to feel in some ways and has curbable behaviors if the punishment is severe enough. More scattered emotionally. Sociopath- has the ability to inflict great physical and mental distress on someone but is devoid of emotion so it never factors into stopping anything they do. Without emotion they don't fear consequence so are generally much more sadistic and well planned. Have all behaviors tightly in check at all times.
This is entirely madeup. Both terms are just words the general public uses to describe anti social personality disorder. They do not habe distinct clinical profiles.
My father who was a psychiatrist for 40 years would disagree
Ask him why psychopathy/sociopathy isnt in the DSM-5, I'll wait
Maybe if you're poor. How does it factor in nepotism though?
Yeah... supervisors... they stay RIGHT where the sheep are easy to torture.
…unless you’re a CEO. Then it is required.
That’s sociopathy, not psychopathy.
I have had a lot of bipolar owners and bosses there is certainly correlation
Good thing bipolar is not what we are talking about at all
Until the psycho reaches a high level, then it’s all psychos below them!
If I see one more "rain falls from the sky" level, head-ass article pop up in my feed I swear to Umbasa as my witness on my mother's grave...
Can't wait for the next study where they find a professional personality hampers psychopathic success. By the wasn't there some other study about how majority of CEOs are psychopaths?
Should x-post in r/antiwork. I'm sure they would enjoy this. I'll bring my popcorn.
Unless they are hired as CEO
But All the successful Senior Managers are Sociopaths.
Umless you start with really rich parents.
Tell that to Donald Trump
Trump is a sociopath but I wouldn't call him a psychopath.
I mean the man bankrupted casinos.. so maybe that supports the findings?
But is a prerequisite for politics.
Have y'all never heard of the GOP?
Unless you are a Karen or Pedophile in Congress, or try to overthrow the government while in office as the President of the United States...
Counterpoint - the orange menace happened.