Now consider the following variation (Case 2), proposed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson:
As before, a railway trolley is speeding out of control down a track toward five people. But this time you are standing behind a very large stranger on a footbridge above the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to heave the stranger over. He will fall to a certain death. But his considerable girth will block the trolley, saving five lives. Question: Should you push him?
Here you might say we're faced with a “real” dilemma. Although the score in lives is precisely the same as in the first example (five to one), playing the game makes us a little more circumspect and jittery. But why?
Greene believes he has the answer. It has to do with different climatic regions in the brain.
Case 1, he proposes, is what we might call an impersonal moral dilemma and involves those areas of the brain, the prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex (in particular, the anterior paracingulate cortex, the temporal pole and the superior temporal sulcus), principally implicated in our objective experience of cold empathy: in reasoning and rational thought.
Case 2, on the other hand, is what we might call a personal moral dilemma. It hammers on the door of the brain's emotion center, known as the amygdala—the circuit of hot empathy.
Just like most normal members of the population, psychopaths make pretty short work of the dilemma presented in Case 1. Yet—and this is where the plot thickens—quite unlike normal people, they also make pretty short work of Case 2. Psychopaths, without batting an eye, are perfectly happy to chuck the fat guy over the side.
To compound matters further, this difference in behavior is mirrored, rather distinctly, in the brain. The pattern of neural activation in both psychopaths and normal people is well matched on the presentation of impersonal moral dilemmas—but dramatically diverges when things get a bit more personal.
Imagine that I were to pop you into a functional MRI machine and then present you with the two dilemmas. What would I observe as you went about negotiating their moral minefields? Just around the time that the nature of the dilemma crossed the border from impersonal to personal, I would see your amygdala and related brain circuits—your medial orbitofrontal cortex, for example—light up like a pinball machine. I would witness the moment, in other words, that emotion puts its money in the slot.
But in a psychopath, I would see only darkness. The cavernous neural casino would be boarded up and derelict—the crossing from impersonal to personal would pass without any incident.
The Psychopath Mix
The question of what it takes to succeed in a given profession, to deliver the goods and get the job done, is not all that difficult when it comes down to it. Alongside the dedicated skill set necessary to perform one's specific duties—in law, in business, in whatever field of endeavor you care to mention—exists a selection of traits that code for high achievement.
In 2005 Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon, then at the University of Surrey in England, conducted a survey to find out precisely what it was that made business leaders tick. What, they wanted to know, were the key facets of personality that separated those who turn left when boarding an airplane from those who turn right?
Board and Fritzon took three groups—business managers, psychiatric patients and hospitalized criminals (those who were psychopathic and those suffering from other psychiatric illnesses)—and compared how they fared on a psychological profiling test.
Their analysis revealed that a number of psychopathic attributes were actually more common in business leaders than in so-called disturbed criminals—attributes such as superficial charm, egocentricity, persuasiveness, lack of empathy, independence, and focus. The main difference between the groups was in the more “antisocial” aspects of the syndrome: the criminals' lawbreaking, physical aggression and impulsivity dials (to return to our analogy of earlier) were cranked up higher.
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentI can see how some of the traits common in psychopaths may indeed be useful in the pursuit of top leadership positions (gaining power) and some other things, like this article says.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I'm wondering: Is this good or bad for the people affected by their leadership?
In recent years I've seen some other books describing disasterous results from "psychopathic" bosses in companies. Sure, they use their "talents" to rise in the company hierarchy. But (in these books) they don't care at all about doing a good job for their company or anyone else. Whenever there is an opportunity to cheat or take advantage of someone else for their own benefit, they do that. As long as they can manipulate their own bosses into promoting them, they don't care if they destroy the people already under their command or the entire company in the process, because it is all just a means for their own goals.
The article only mentions there's a difference between "functional" and "dysfunctional" psychopathy, "criminal" and "noncriminal" psychopaths, where the criminal ones have higher aggression and impulsivity and (obviously) more law-breaking. Is the article saying that, as long as a person with more or less psychopathic traits doesn't get convicted of a crime, then they are examples of the positive sides of psychopathic traits? That seems a bit too simplistic to me.
It seems to me, that a psychopath could very well avoid breaking the law too much, and still be very destructive to society and to people who come into contact with them. (And all the more so, if they succeed in rising to a really powerful leadership position, like international leader, CEO of a big corporation, and so on.)
I would have liked the article to go more into this dimension too: What is the real difference between a destructive psychopaths cheating and causing harm to others and to society (even though not being a criminal), and people who just share some of their traits in healthy doses, causing them to perform better? Are these traits mostly helping them cheat better, or actually perform better...?
Just saying there's different degrees of some traits, still leaves many many questions as to which ones make something good of it, and which ones just go out using people as tools and harming others in the process.
How big is this group? Can we avoid the bad ones? Are there any mechanisms in place that weed out the worst ones from rising too high? Or are many of our leaders actually beyond that line, causing more trouble than benefit to the rest of us?
Another question about full-blown psychopaths in general: How can they be so charming and manipulative and persuasive and e.g skilled in reading the body language of people to see who is looking "guilty" (as the experiment in the article) or who may be a good prey for their schemes, while at the same time being so "blind" to other peoples emotions (and possibly their own too), as psychopaths are usually characterized?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow could you possibly charm someone, without observing his reactions and feelings?
How could you manipulate someone, whithout intimate knowledge about how that person will think and react? How could you know how that person will react, without having a good understanding of their emotions and needs, and so on?
Being blind to other peoples emotions sounds more like an autistic person. They are not very good at manipulating others, or tell who is "guilty", or anything. It is quite debilitating...
I never undestood how this makes sense. Maybe someone else can explain? (Or write another nice article...)
The willingness of politicians to utterly ignore looming disasters (global warming) as well as to be alarmist about threats to and attacks on themselves (Panetta warns of cyber attacks against USA) without concern for USA's threats and attacks on others (USA and Israeli cyber attacks on Iran) is consistent -- it seems to me -- with psychopathy and its near-kin. We need to fix our political system to select for other "qualities" of mind and spirit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like being a psychopath. Relatively nonviolent, I walk among lions and remain fearless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkeam, if you get the book, it goes into more detail and surely would answer your questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Wisdom of Psychopaths", by Kevin Dutton
I think the pushing-a-man-on-the-tracks scenario is somewhat clouded by the obvious question: if pushing a large man onto the track would save five people, then surely jumping onto the track myself would also have a chance of saving some of those people, since I am not exactly small. Thus, it is more a test of one's selflessness than the emotional depth of one's utilitarianism. I feel it is not parallel to the flipping-a-switch scenario at all. If there were a third position for the switch to direct the train at switch-flipper, then they would be parallel and the only difference would be the actual physical push. But they weren't framed that way so I don't think it's a useful comparison.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this28 out of 33 in the psychopath test. Ouch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess I must have scored too low in "lack of conscience" to be able to properly enjoy my psychopathy, huh.
One comment about the article, though: No mention of intelligence. You need high intelligence, in addition to other, necessary traits, to be able to succeed; be it at axe-murdering or other professions. Most relevant serial killers have notably high IQ scores. Usually high-ranking leaders do, too.
Why leave it out here?
Who says they're blind to anything skeam? You can be perfectly aware of the hurt you are causing to someone else, and even exquisitely sensitive to it and still JUST NOT CARE. In some sense the very hypersensitivity may be part of the problem here. We all hurt each other in little ways, but most of us are insensitive enough not to notice the small things. The big ones stand out. This may not be true for the hypersensitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychopaths maybe could teach us something for living in a competitive zero-sum world, but what about a cooperative world? We live with some of both. I'd like to see games of many varieties designed more like life, around balancing between personl points and community points. Personal points would mean you could play the game more effectively. Medium numbers of community points would make the game go on forever, but few or many community points would tip the balance between cascading community win or loss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI could comment at length about the cultural bias inherent in this article. How the admiration for these so-called 'qualities' seeps through the words. But a number of comments before mine have said it quite well - being human is more than achieving 'success.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I will simply say: I pray to never be subject to a surgeon who sees himself as God. If he hasn't the humility to say prayer to the source of his power - I want him nowhere near me. Helping or hurting, a psycopath cannot help but damage the delicate web of life.
I totally disagree with the conclusions of this paper. Certainly, when you operate another fellow human being, You have to rationalize and leave emotions out of the operating theatre, but the reasons that took You there are almost entirely ethical (by the way, I am a neurosurgeon too and I guess that the one they cited in the paper would agree with me). There is a deep difference between courage and lack of empathy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf our society puts sociopaths in charge, then the present crisis was simply unavoidable.
I am puzzled about the distinction between psychopaths and extremely narcissistic people. Is there one? Narcissists typically put their own needs above those of others, but do they not care at all about others' needs? It's one thing to evaluate your own needs so high that they trump those of others, it's another to disregard others' needs altogether. Narcissists tend to be deluded not only about their own self worth, but also their abilities; is this true of psychopaths as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like some better understanding of this distinction, if it's valid at all.
I've always felt that climate deniers likely fit into the psychopath spectrum. People willing to lie and misrepresent the facts in order to forward their own personal agenda despite the risks to others seem to display an extreme ruthlessness. We see the same with those who support creationism. It was demonstrated that the creationist agenda is to use intelligent design as a wedge to get religion back into the school system. So again, a campaign of deliberate misrepresentation to advance an ideology. No surprise to me that both of these come from the political right. The policies of the right seem to be based primarily on greed, intolerance and fear. The idea that they should contribute to the common good seems so abhorrent to them. I wonder how the numbers would break down if you split the results of the psychopath test along the lines of political ideology? I guess the next question is; are psychopaths born or taught? Likely somewhere between.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love it when research confirms the obvious. Our economic ruling elite is blatantly psychopathic and sociopathic in its behaviors. Does anyone doubt the big banks are run by anyone except psychopathic personalities? Bain Capital, anyone - "I love firing people providing personal services"...except maybe outsourcing even more. You don't dare question my definition of "success" or you are degenerate dependents because I say so, you suckers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would maintain that being a psychopath does not make one a better surgeon, it merely makes one better at both convincing others and at convincing oneself that one is a good surgeon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't empathize with your patients you will do things like ram an ice pick up their nose and twiddle it around in their brain and convince yourself and others that you've performed useful surgery (and that was very literally done!) Because you don't empathize with the patients it's easy to convince yourself that since they don't complain anymore it must have done them good. It you DID empathize with them you'd have seen that they are no longer functional at all.
The "best" doctors are created by doctoring the records rather than doctoring the patients. (Ask the NURSES. They're the ones that really know who's a good doctor and who isn't (but they don't dare say.)
The reason that psychopaths DO make the best politicians is that it's far easier to lie than to really do something and when the press is a willing lapdog you can get away with that. When the public is too gullible to distinguish between truth and lies, lies are what they choose because lies can always be made more palatable than truth.
When a society is psychopathic, the psychopaths do best. In a healthy society, the psychopaths wind up where they belong: at the bottom of the heap.
"We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Terminological clarifications: In case anybody is interested in the question I asked about the distinction between narcissists and psychopaths, here's a YouTube reference that's interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VXdW6KlwCM/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, in response to a couple of respondents, there is no accepted distinction between psychopaths and sociopaths; according to Wikipedia, they're different terms for the same disorder.
It's important for decent people to understand these disorders, because we live in a society in which narcissism is strongly supported; indeed, Ayn Rand's "objectivism" appears (to me, at least) to be what I call "petit bourgeois narcissism." In our society, as pointed out in the article and by many respondents, people with the more extreme, and much more dangerous disorder of psychopathology frequently achieve high office. Scary stuff.
The distinction you are trying to make is between psychopath and sociopath. The root suffix implies suffering. A person make succeed in fulfilling their own needs at great cost to others. Such groups surely exist, even if they are only 1% and the other 99% suffer for it. Look around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said Skeam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course some good worthwhile jobs, such as surgery, need to be done by people who can keep their emotional distance from what they're doing.
But most of the examples Kevin Dutton gives in this extract of 'successful' people with psychopathic tendencies are people who've achieved power and wealth at the expense of other people, and are 'functional' only in the sense that they manage not to get in trouble with the law. That doesn't make what they do good, for them or for the rest of us.
I'll borrow Kevin Dutton's book from my local public library. I'll get my own copy if I think it's worth spending money on. That might take one of two things: if he's come up with some genuinely good insights into how we can learn from psychopathic tendencies how to make the world a better place; or his book makes clear the parallels between criminals and the rich and powerful who evade the law but who cause at least as much damage to society.
'When a society is psychopathic, the psychopaths do best. In a healthy society, the psychopaths wind up where they belong: at the bottom of the heap.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the first bit, Apostate, but not with the second.
In a healthy society none of us would be psychopaths, and there wouldn't be a 'heap' in which some people were at the bottom.
A healthy society would be an equal society in which everybody was contented, at least as much as that's possible given that we're all going to die and suffer loss and grief...
The interesting questions to my mind are these:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat factors lead some people to be psychopaths?
If most psychopathic traits are bad for society, what could we do to ensure that there as few psychopaths in society as possible?
And if there are some psychopathic traits which can sometimes be good for society, what could we do to ensure that those traits are encouraged, at least in some people, so that we can all benefit?
If the book answers these questions, then I'm interested...
I don't know much about the inner workings of a psychopath, but I can offer some ideas based on what I do know and have read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that psychopaths can be similar in quite a few ways to sociopaths. It isn't about reading people while being blind to their emotions--they aren't blind. They are able to manipulate and prey on others -because- they're actually quite intuitive, especially when it comes to emotions that could make for weakness. The "blindness" that I think you're referring to isn't blindness at all; it's simply an inability to actually feel those emotions themselves. Psychopaths (and sociopaths), if their "dials" are turned to the right numbers, are only able to mimic the emotions that they see those around them sincerely experiencing.
A psychopath absolutely -does- charm someone through observing their reactions and feelings-that's what it's all about for them. It doesn't mean they care about their observations.
It's perfectly reasonable for a psychopath to manipulate someone without "intimate" knowledge of how that person will think or react. It's not about the intimate knowledge, but about the ability to read others. Generally speaking, we all react the same way to basic situations, and for a psychopath, we are all fairly easily manipulated, no matter how intimately or not he or she knows us. The psychopath doesn't need to "understand" our emotions and needs-he or she only needs to know what buttons to push to evoke the desired response or action from us.
Certainly, being blind to other people's needs is a characteristic of autism, but I'm not sure why you would make that comparison here. Autism does not equal, in any way, psychopathy. If we are in agreement about what I've said above, then I've already cleared up the confusion of whether psychopaths are blind or simply uncaring. Autism is blind. Psychopathy is uncaring.
Again, I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I have always been extremely interested in the minds of psychopaths and do a lot of reading on the subject (it's sort of my dark hobby). In the research I've done, these are the things I've found, and I hope they're helpful in answering your questions.
Quite simply the world needs psychopaths. Like the surgeon in the article, the ability to remain cold and distant, whether from nature or nurture is imperative to certain professions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm a psychopath and I can teach you how to win" -
http://www.psycholocrazy.com/im-a-psychopath
The political comments here are brilliant. "Anybody who disagrees with me is a psychopath." Really, really deep thinking there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing human is more important than achieving "success" (though many of us humans may ultimately benefit from the good works of some of the successful). But nothing in this article suggested otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy dissertation research was on psychopathic sex offenders and the Rorschach and I spent a lot of time reading all of the research I could find by people like Robert Hare etc. It is a complicated minefield trying to label anything, however, the constellation of features in psychopathy is proven. It is the new survival of the fittest. We no longer need to be physically durable and strong to exert power. I would like to understand whether psychopathy is increasing, or is it our attention to the label.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is my understanding that psychopaths are not "blind" to other people's emotions but rather are indifferent to them. Psychopaths tend to be very adept at reading people's emotions (and exploiting them) but lack empathy for the emotions experienced. When "expressing" emotion and acting in the charismatic manner that many psychopaths are known for, they are most likely doing just that - acting. It is a technique that they have learned from observing people and figuring out how to perform in a way that will elicit the response they desire, but the interest of individual who they are influencing is of secondary importance to the psychopath's own interest (or is completely irrelevant).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found "The Psychopath Test" by Jon Ronson to be a great read on the subject of psychopathy.
That's easy: THEY DO NOT CARE. A psychopath by definition has no empathy for anyone, is totally self-involved and self-absorbed -- the universe is here to do his bidding and other people are simply tools used to reach his goals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr I might add to the following statement the phrase in paranthesisbelow:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you are born under the right star, for example, and have power over the human mind as the moon over the sea, you might order the genocide of 100,000 Kurds "or kill 1.5 million Iraqis by bombs stirred from a desk in Utah, USA"
While many politicians and world leaders certainly possess some mix of the traits common among psychopathic serial killers, i.e., a grandiose sense of self-worth, persuasiveness, superficial charm, ruthlessness, lack of remorse, and the manipulation of others, those politicians and world leaders rarely possess those traits to the degree psychopathic serial killers do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat society is loath to acknowledge is that we have gone out of our way to create virtual psychopathic serial killers: corporations.
A successful corporation comprises all the traits of a psychopathic serial killer; indeed, it is bred to be so.
It would be an interesting and enlightening project to examine the relationship between corporate leaders who would not be deemed psychopathic in their personal lives and their psychopathy as corporate leaders: Walter Mittys gone wild! Where does the incipient-psychopath end and the corporate-psychopath begin?
Does the corporation corrupt the individual or does the individual, lacking one or more psychopathic traits, use the corporation as a "Dumbo's feather" to satisfy a deeply-seated need that might otherwise lie undisturbed? Are we all incipient-psychopaths, lacking only a virtual "heat of vaporization" to become full-fledged psychopaths?
In the case of the train dilemma, where sacrificing one person to save a few people is presented as the only choices, there are actually more choices. A person who holds extreme libertarian views might choose to do nothing rather than "interfere." A fatalist might make the same choice. The libertarian and the fatalist may be psychopathic or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychos at the bottom? Not even. Psychos are made relevant by their enablers. Milgram (obedience to authority experiments), banality of evil (those obedients, again), voters, etc. “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived”, (Petronius, 1st century a.d.). Its symbiotic, a dance. But not everybody is either pogo or psycho….
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharming psychopaths are not "blind" to other people's or their own emotions. They have a predator's hierarchy where these emotions are of no consequence in accomplishing goals. Predatory psychopaths feel perfectly righteous about using others as tools to accomplish their ends.In life we all use other people as means to our own ends without much concern or notice. Using a person as a servant is an institutionalized form of psychopathy but perfectly acceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would Hitler say??????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisskeam:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is because the psychopath is totally focussed on his/her own feelings. He doesn't have to sense other people's feelings except as they mirror his/her own.
The term sociopath has gone out of use, now replaced with psychopath. Does this mean that there is no difference in the meaning of the two terms?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to all who replied to my question about how psychopaths are able to charm and deceive other people so well, if they don't experience other people emotions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to most of you, psychopaths do not have any trouble with reading other people emotions, they just don't care or empathize with them; they don't feel the same emotions themselves; they only care about their own emotions and desires. So my question was in error.
That could be a reasonable theory, which I also was considering initially. However, I've been reading other statements here and there, that, to me, seem to contradict this theory.
I don't remember all places I read this (I think some of them were other articles in Scientific American), but e.g the Wikipedia page on "Empathy" mentions this:
"Some psychopaths are able to detect the emotions of others ... and can mimic caring and friendship in a convincing manner ..."
So this may explain how SOME psychopaths does it. But it would seem to indicate that those are in the minority, and most psychopaths can NOT detect emotions...
One criterion for diagnosing psychopaths is also that they are "emotionally shallow", not feeling that much emotions themselves either. (And in particular not feeling much fear.) I question how they can convincingly mimic normal emotions when interacting with and charming their victims, if they don't really know what those emotions feel like internally. Not having experienced the same emotions, should make them bad actors, unable to convince normal people. Just like a really crappy amateur actor on film, if you ever saw one. A good actor needs to be in contact with the emotions they are acting.
So how does this really make sense...?
To hazard a guess of my own: Maybe the general diagnosis of psychopathy is too broad, including several subgroups, both the master cunning deceivers we really like to think about, and others with just poor behaviour controls and dysfunctional emotions and impulsivity, making up a big part of the general prison population, but perhaps not so good at mimicking a normal person in interpersonal relations (?) or carrying out a complex plan, and so on. Apparently much work on psychopaths was done on prison populations, so the diagnosis criteria may be dominated by what was found there. I think I concluded from some earlier readings, that this latter kind makes up the bigger part of the group of psychopaths.
These subgroups might have completely different inner workings in their head.
Null, it's easy, they simply don't care, as long as there is even an immaterial benefit to themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUncomfortable as it is...functioning psychopaths are at the forefront of our world and are seemingly in control of our political and economic destiny. One could argue that they are controling our evolution as humans. I would argue that the more successful types would manipulate others in poorer countries should they get the chance. The big companies pay poor wages with poor work conditions so we in the west can live comfortable...and more to the point - they can make bigger profits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that in Kevin Dutton's book he defines the terms he uses so glibly here, terms such as "wisdom," "success," and "violence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe says, "psychopaths are fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless, and focused." Dr. Robert Hare helped establish this pattern of traits several years ago, so nothing new is being stated here with regard to the overall "package" of psychopathic traits.
But to then go on to say, as Dr. Dutton does, that "[psychopaths] are not necessarily violent" shows a profound disregard for the level of emotional, intellectual, sexual, and spiritual violence perpetrated by psychopaths against the non-psychopaths around them.
A psychopath doesn't have to level a gun against someone to commit violent injury against another person (or creature or ecosystem).
Psychopaths are violent. They seem to enjoy the high they get from ripping out another person's sense of integrity, self-worth, and safety. Psychopathy and schadenfreude go hand in hand.
Rather than ask what the dysfunctional among us can teach us about how to be a good neurosurgeon, why aren't we asking the opposite question? Why aren't we asking what happens in the world when we raise our children to use all parts of their brain in holistic, balanced, mature, empathetic ways (which is something a psychopath can't do)? Balance (using the whole brain, not just parts of the brain) is the path to genuine wisdom as it's been understood for millennia by those who have a heart and a conscience and a willingness to do more in this world than just survive.
And as for that question about pushing the stranger off the bridge to save 5 other people . . . if the only way to save these people is for a fresh body to land on the trolley tracks, then go ahead and do the right thing. Jump yourself. For a person with genuine empathy, this is a no-brainer (paradox intended).
Only successful world leaders and politicians have he same traits as psychopathic serial killers and as said in earlier comments these traits can be destructive to those around them, but allow the person with these traits to succeed. These traits where probably passed down through generations and the most primitive relatives to people with these traits where probably survivors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I let go of my feelings of guilt, I get in touch with my inner psychopath
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven "moral" decision making is highly dependent on how much information we have about the situation at hand. In both cases #1 and #2, it's vital to quickly gather as much information as you can to help you decide. So by simply & clearly asking the five people on the tracks ahead, "Republican or Democrat?" - you instantly know if this is an opportunity to wipe out as many as five Republicans with one trolley. ;-) [Because we already know that Republicans have the most psychopaths in their ranks.]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, if the theory given in the article has any merit, it tells us the necessity of determining "where on the spectrum" any candidate for 'leadership' lies. Any good salesman knows to cater to the resentments of their prospective "buyer." So they always ask questions to find out your hot buttons and your recreation choices (asking, "Do you like baseball?" tells them a lot more than you think). The more a politician uses sales techniques, the more certain it is that (1) they'r trying to suck you in and (2) the less they care about the consequences of their ideology.
It would seen important to me to define 'success'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychopaths do pick up on human emotions; the difference is that they simply do not care. This is very different from other "disorders" such as autism (where one actually cannot detect emotion without a lot of effort).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe difference is not only physical (the wiring of the brain), but emotional. Narcissists can still feel empathy and emotion towards others, whereas psychopaths do not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand it, one of the points of this article is that emotion can cloud judgment - and those who aren't afflicted with it (emotion, not judgment) can sometimes arrive at a clearer action than those who are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmoral is not necessarily immoral - but we're used to living with people that, generally, have feelings about what they do and when we encounter those who do not, we are thrown off by that.
Emotions can be highly useful. For me they are. But I can also see how they can sometimes pose a hindrance.
There are 2 ways of dealing with todays world - one of them is being a psychopath. Some of the traits that make psychopath so strong and successful are shared by another type of person. Fearlessness, unconcern with what others think about you, living in the present moment - it's all characteriscic for the so called enlightened person. The difference here is that a psychopath is totally possessed by the ego and driven by the lowest desires, an "enlightened" person, a master, is ego-free, a warrior of the light. Perhaps this is the challenge of todays stressful world - the eternal choice between good and evil
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this