Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: guilty pleasures?

we have to make some cuts...
i once made a decision to leave a job after discovering this fast company article on line. why? because i realised that my job involved answering to a psychopath. and once you've realised that, you know that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. whatever you're doing, however secure or skilled you think you are, even when you think you've mastered the ways of your mercurial overlord and can rely on him/ her to carry you on their dragon's wings ever higher, the fact is that you're working for someone who doesn't accept the fundamental humanity of others. it's not a matter of this person betraying you the way you probably think of it. the psychopath is someone who thinks of him/ herself as somehow different and better than everyone else- including you. if you think they're on your side, if you think that they're your partner, it's really just that you happen to be useful to this person. 

on a basic level, we are acclimatised to have the reaction that psychopath = bad. after all, the psychopath is the person who's going to eat [insert generic popular eye candy actress here] if she doesn't manage to escape. so how is it that psychopaths have managed to rise to such prominence in our society that a business mag like "fast company" deems them significant enough to warrant an article? 

there's the rub [as hamlet would say, if he weren't dead and mostly fictional]. let's look at a full set of the hare criteria for psychopathy, generally considered to be the defining terms for identifying a psychopath in your midst: 




  • glib and superficial charm
  • grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
  • need for stimulation
  • pathological lying
  • cunning and manipulativeness
  • lack of remorse or guilt
  • shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
  • callousness and lack of empathy
  • parasitic lifestyle
  • poor behavioral controls
  • sexual promiscuity
  • early behavior problems
  • lack of realistic long-term goals
  • impulsivity
  • irresponsibility
  • failure to accept responsibility for own actions
  • many short-term marital relationships
  • juvenile delinquency
  • revocation of conditional release
  • criminal versatility
  • source: http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html#b#ixzz2d7kN0K6q


    in a hare diagnosis, subjects are graded a 0, 1, or 2 depending on how well any of these points applies to them. score above 30 and he-ya, welcome to psycho territory. 

    except that when you think about it, these are also things that we tend to value in business. people who are superficially charming [because really, what kind of substance is ever demanded in business relationships?], people who are smart enough to talk their way out of trouble, people who will not get bogged down in a sense of emotional responsibility or morality... these are people who can benefit employers. the ones who are impulsive, who are not constrained by realistic long-term goals, who are always looking for the next big, new thing to occupy them. you can certainly see where, contrary to what horror films may have told you, the psychopath is an exceptionally valuable member of society. 

    i asked dom, who has forgotten more about movies today than i'll ever know, to come up with a single portrayal of a psychopath that showed them to be successful in society. excluding "american psycho"- too easy and a noted exception- and stories based on true events, he was only able to come up with "peeping tom". although i adore the film, i'd say that it at best portrays its antihero as treading the line between artistic fervour and straight-up insanity. so can we just agree that film portrayals of psychopaths have not been positive?

    so how does this apparent disconnect happen? pop culture inundates us with stories of the amoral psychopath as dangerous, antisocial and deadly, but at the same time, business studies indicate that amorality and lack of empathy are conducive to growth. herein lies the problem. 

    what we claim to value in our consideration of ourselves as whole, moral beings is somehow in conflict with the extremely quantifiable values we have in business. so yes, we accept characteristics that we might otherwise classify as deranged when they are directed towards a financial goal. so psychopaths are only a problem when their tendencies are "misdirected". and by "misdirected", what's meant is that the psychopathy manifests itself solely in ways that are not beneficial to the economy. even then, of course, the psychopath isn't problematic- just annoying. read the checklist again. there is nothing in there that deals with a predisposition to violence. at most, it establishes the psychopath as a non-respecter of authority and laws.  the particular laws that they disrespect are determined by which ones prove an inconvenience to them and, more importantly, which ones they feel they can defy without getting caught. pragmatism is paramount. accounting inconsistencies can go years without being caught. dead bodies tend to raise questions. 

    the fact is that our cinematic fascination with absolute, unreasoning evil as being very recognisable as an aberration blinds us to the fact that amoral behaviour is mundane and its effects have clear benefits for industry. those who are the least bound by the social contract, which requires people to see each other at some basic level as equals, tend to be those who can spur the most growth. 

    so the next time you look at your stock portfolio or rrsp [401k if you're in the states and i don't know what you call them elsewhere], remember that any improvement you see is probably due to the fact that michael myers and jason voorhees have dropped their masks and are sitting at the head of a conference table somewhere. 

    Comments

    Martin Rouge said…
    While we encounter psychopaths, or people with varying degrees of psychological behavior, and give them a free pass, is not only because they do things that can be beneficial (if amoral) but also because we interpret their success as and perceived worth as to make them untouchable.

    Bad boss, coworker, life partner, business rival or pundit, they are given free reign, because what can you do, really? Their success is feared and envied, and by direct connection, we know that, were we to rise against them, we would lose. Their very existence, their presence is a threat, a constant reminder that we are swimming with sharks.
    Kate MacDonald said…
    Very well put, as always Martin. Non-psychopaths have a capacity for questioning and self-doubt that just isn't in the wiring for psychopaths. And those are things that can easily undermine the rest of us.

    as long as you're here, why not read more?

    losers?

    just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

    today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

    trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

    long division

    after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

    it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

    don't speak

    you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

    there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

    devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…