Note: This is page devoted to all IT professionals who suffer from psychopathic
bosses. Only those who already suffered or still suffering from one of those types can understand the level of pain as well
as stakes involved in dealing with such individuals.
If you are reading this page, you probably have problems with you boss ;-). Now what ? Actually situation is
bad, and you are really trapped, but it is not inescapable situation. You can and should escape. As old saying goes "Knowledge is power" and this is the area
where this saying is literally true. Learning the ropes can help to find a way to escape, and lessen the current pain.
It is important to understand that whose managers who produce living hell are not all created equal. But
they have a common tendency to project their dissatisfaction with their life and emotional emptiness outward and ascribe
it to others. If they succeed it is all them, but if they fail, it's your fault.
They are incapable of trust, because everything they do is a facade, a lie, a Potemkin village. The same Potemkin
village as their family life, where wife and children at best are viewed as a desirable possession. And
that's it. They have utter contempt for
other people, although they will use flattery, deceit and other means to create a dependency while they are using them. And
after that is done, you will be discarded like an empty box. In other words they are real sharks, endlessly seeking the prey to fill their
emotional emptiness with possessions, be they things or other people.
And they are literally insatiable in their needs, and highly focused in their pursuit of them.
There two large group of
dangerous managers who typically make the life of subordinates a living hell. We will call them "toxic managers".
The first and the most numerous are Authoritarians. Those are quintessential "kiss up, kick down"
personalities. Among most typical traits:
1.Illogical Thinking:The lack of independent, critical thinking.
2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds:Authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another.
3. Double Standards :When your ideas live independent lives from one another it is pretty easy to use double
standards in your judgments. You simply call up the idea that will justify (afterwards) what you’ve decided to do.
4. Hypocrisy:The leaders of authoritarian movements sometimes accuse their opponents of being anti-democratic
and anti-free speech when the latter protest
against various books, movies, speakers, teachers and so on.
5. Blindness To Themselves:self-righteousness.
6. A Profound Ethnocentrism:Ethnocentrism means dividing the world up into in-groups and out-groups…….in-groups
are holy and good…out-groups are evil and Satanic.
7. Dogmatism: the Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense:By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified
certainty. Loyal followers obey without questions…..
The second less numerous but more dangerous are socialized psychopaths or how they are called sociopaths. The term psychopath (and its later 1930s
term that is more applicable to corporate environment, sociopath -- "socialized
psychopath", or psychopath who did not (yet) committed any crime) had always been a sort of catch-all, widely and loosely
applied to both violent and unstable criminals who ignore all the rules of civilized society and cruel
corporate executives who demean and exploit their staff using "dirty" methods to achieve their goals. Later this condition was
expanded to include certain type of managers which consistently demonstrate cult leader qualities and who became a standard
feature of most corporation to the extent that we can consider corporations
to be a breeding grounds for psychopathic personalities. Such "office cult leaders" like many high demand cult
leaders need only followers and try to completely enslave their victims.
We will use an umbrella term "toxic managers" for both corporate psychopaths and (more numerous) authoritarian managers.
That term actually allow us to avoid nitpicking about whether particular manager is real psychopath, or something else and
concentrate of patterns of behavior which are surprisingly common. For our purpose real psychological diagnosis does not
matter. What matter for us is the fact that both authoritarians and psychopath of various "denominations" are really dangerous predators of corporate jungles in general and IT jungles
in particular. And they blend well into the current environment within government and mega corporations.
As all of them there is one important encompassing feature: predation. Most individuals in modern societies are caught up in the perpetual struggle of striking a balance between pursuing their
own interests and respecting others' rights. When their own pursuits take precedent over others, individuals typically
feel some guilt or shame about their greed. But there is no such conflict inside sociopathic managers.
They do not need
to rationalize their exploitation of other, they simply feel they are entitled. Which makes them perfect predator of corporate
jungles. When in power, they typically use
their animosity to keep others in line. Often they create kind of cult of personality environment in which, like in
Stalinist Russia, in order to survive, employees must identify with their aggressor or become one of the leader's victims
(and please note that Joseph Stalin was a pretty charming personality in his narrow Politburo circle).
It goes without saying that presence of such individuals in the role of the manager puts a tremendous stress on his direct
reports. Psychopaths are more that rare among general population and by some estimates represent over 1% of population and
approximately 4% of managers. Authoritarians are more common and can constitute majority of middle managers in the corporation.
So both university students and regular cubicle dwellers should better know your enemy as they might need to deal with them in their first
or next "manager-subordinate"
relationship. They (especially Authoritarians) might be present among your immediate or extended family too.
With those reservations, we would distinguish the following non-orthogonal types based on a single, dominant behavioral stereotype
(for example all psychopath are bullies, but only bullies has this as a predominant feature). That's a crude and unscientific
classification but it does has some practical value in dealing with this type of predators because our emphasis is of classifying
and describing typical set of behaviors that those people use during "hunt" for prey. It is valuable to knew something about
what to expect if you are on the receiving end of such a behavior. We will distinguish:
Double high authoritarians. Which are not exactly psychopaths, but demonstrate very similar
cluster of behaviors and are much more numerous, almost prevalent in corporate world.
Authoritarians are more numerous and less dangerous category of toxic managers. If
you boss fits the description you need to go to the church and light the candle. While your situation is bad and often
justifiably can be called simply terrible, believe me it could be much, much worse (see below).
It is not always easy to detect authoritarian manager while not being his/her subordinates. Sometimes, like in
romantic relations, it is quote difficult until it's too late, as kiss up behavior can be polished to perfection. one of
the few good indications of authoritarian personality are extreme right wing views (see
Double High Authoritarians). In any case as soon as this
guy/nice lady become your boss, "kick down" side of his/her personality will be demonstrated to you in all glory and
there are zero problems with the detection. The only problem is that it's too late ;-).
Also it is not necessary that authoritarian boss should be incompetent. First of all, while there is correlation
between authoritarianism and low intelligence it is just a correlation. Some authoritarians are quite bright (Bill
O'Reilly -- a Fox News talking head with his own show is one example).
Another important trait that can be observed by outsiders is that authoritarians tend to
exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect
inferences from evidence and to hold self-contradictory
ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are typically unable to acknowledge their own limitations
and assume responsibility for errors and blunders. Here is a short but very useful list from
Our Church Administration
is Critically Infected « Another Voice
1.Illogical Thinking:The lack of independent, critical thinking.
2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds:Authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another.
3. Double Standards :When your ideas live independent lives from one another it is pretty easy to use double
standards in your judgments. You simply call up the idea that will justify (afterwards) what you’ve decided to do.
4. Hypocrisy:The leaders of authoritarian movements sometimes accuse their opponents of being anti-democratic
and anti-free speech when the latter protest
against various books, movies, speakers, teachers and so on.
5. Blindness To Themselves:self-righteousness.
6. A Profound Ethnocentrism:Ethnocentrism means dividing the world up into in-groups and out-groups…….in-groups
are holy and good…out-groups are evil and Satanic.
7. Dogmatism: the Authoritarian’s Last Ditch Defense:By dogmatism I mean relatively unchangeable, unjustified
certainty. Loyal followers obey without questions…..
I would put dogmatism higher as this is valuable test which works when this type of people report to you or are on the same
level as you and present to you their "fake", Potemkin village facade, but other then that this is an excellent, simply excellent list. One missing, but
important feature is that authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom
and diversity. When discussing political preferences, tor example, they are more willing to suspend constitutional
guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of
Rights. They also are more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals, and they admit that they
obtain personal satisfaction from punishing such people. See Authoritarians
Aggression in inherent in psychopath as a predator in corporate environment, and to tell that a psychopath is a bully is
just to tell that the water is wet. So this is a sign that the boss is psychopath, but it does not help in classification
of the set of behaviors that distinguish this particular predator from others. But for some sociopaths this pattern of behavior serves is the most favorite tactics that they use systematically.
Those psychopaths have a distinct a tendency toward sadism and derive perverse gratification from harming others. They do like
to hurt, frighten, tyrannize. They do it for a sense of power and control, and will often only drop subtle hints about
what they are up to (this is also typical of authoritarians).
At the same time they systematically polish
their aggressive, domineering manner in such a way to disguise any intimidation as legitimate corporate behavior and avoid
coming under HR scrutiny for their behavior. Such pathological personalities always seek out positions
of power, such as teacher, bureaucrat, manager, or police officer. You can also distinguish several subtypes:
Authoritarian bullies -- this is the most dangerous type of boss for talented people. Like death sentence
with delayed execution. They always have bouts of incontrollable anger. Some of them can beemotionally out of
control and explosive each week or even each day.
Micromanager bullies (control freaks). This type does not need explanation. Not all authoritarians are micromanagers,
but all micromanagers are bullies.
Narcissist bullies. For them your humiliation is a way to make themselves more important and valuable. They
are often "gatekeepers" that try to steal all achievements and appropriate all ideas of subordinates.
I would like to stress it again that direct or indirect aggression is inherent in sociopath (a socialized psychopath) and to tell that a psychopath
is a bully is just to tell that the water is wet.
US National Center for Education Statistics suggests that bullying can be broken into two categories:
Direct bullying,
Indirect bullying which is also known as social aggression. The latter is characterized by forcing
the victim into social isolation. This
isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including
refusing to socialize with the victim and criticizing the victim's communication manner or other socially-significant
markers.
Indirect bullying is more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as the silent treatment, arguing others into submission,
manipulation, gossip, staring, and mocking. While women can be as aggressive
or even more aggressive then men they usually are more indirect. I would like to stress that gender differences in aggression
are subject to review; human society is too complex and direct projection from animal world, for example, from great apes
is of limited value. See important paper by Kaj Bjorkqvist
Sex Differences in Physical, Verbal, and Indirect
Aggression: A review of recent reseach
Accordingly, one should not expect women to develop and use exactly the same strategies for attaining their goals
as men do. If strategies for aggression and conflict resolution are learned, not innate, then women are likely to learn
different methods than men. Important aspects are power and capacity, not only physical, but also verbal, and social.
Human beings have nonphysical powers which are far beyond those of any other animal. Accordingly, human aggression has
faces and forms, inconceivable within the realm of animal aggression. Extrapolations from animal studies are, therefore,
misleading. Aggressive styles are also subject to developmental change during the life course. As indicated, animal
aggression is mostly physical. Also among young children lacking verbal skills, aggression is predominantly physical.
Verbal skills, when they develop, are quickly utilized not only for peaceful communication, but also for aggressive
purposes. When social skills develop, even more sophisticated strategies of aggression are made possible, with the aggressor
being able to harm a target person without even being identified: Those strategies may be referred to as indirect aggression
(Lagerspetz, Bjorkqvist, and Peltonen, 1988; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen, 1992).
There are good reasons to believe that, as far as adult interpersonal conflict is concerned,
physical aggression is really the exception, not the rule. Other means are more likely to be used.
Burbank (1987) reviews anthropological research on female aggression. She finds females
of different cultures having a large potential of aggressive means to use in order to get even with their husbands,
such as, e.g., locking them out of the house for the night: she regards this as an act of aggression. Burbank (1987)
found females seldom to resort to physical aggression against their husbands, but they did so, occasionally. The most
common reason was that their husbands had committed adultery. Burbank found, however, that women are much more often aggressive towards other women than towards men.
Here is one type from popular literature that fits the pattern:
The Fearmonger Boss. People do what a “fearsome” boss says because they’re afraid of him, which actually encourages
further intimidation. He always has a threat, and he constantly follows through with that threat in order to keep his
employees acquiescent.
Often bulling behavior is combined with paranoia tendencies (paranoiac self-defense). Again this category is fuzzy.
Double high authoritarians are typical bullies.John R. Bolton
is one example (The Guardian). "I have never seen
anyone quite like Mr. Bolton," Mr. Ford said. "He abuses his authority with little people." Bill O'Reilly is another well
known example (Is Bill O'Reilly a bully). His
behavior actually can be studied as many episodes are available from
YouTube Actually Fox News is a real training ground
for this behavior. Their "shut up" style is a typical authoritarian style:
Outfoxed Fox News technique cut their mic!
Many if not all corporate bullies can simultaneously be classified as paranoid managers.
Many of them are also belong to the category of micromanagers.
Large part also falls into the category of narcissists.
Paranoid managers are psychopaths for whom continual mistrust and misjudgment of environment dominates other (often no
less pathological) personality features. Wikipedia defines paranoia in the following way:
Paranoid personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis
that denotes a personality disorder with
paranoid features. It is characterized by an
exaggerated sensitivity to rejection, resentfulness, distrust, as well as the inclination
to distort experienced events. Neutral and friendly actions of others are often
misinterpreted as being hostile or contemptuous.
Unfounded suspicions regarding the sexual loyalty of partners and loyalty in general as well as the belief that one’s
rights are not being recognized is stubbornly and argumentatively insisted upon.
Paranoid managers are suspicious, touchy, typically humorless,
quick to take offense and slow to forgive, self-righteous (Which makes them remarkably similar to authoritarians and micromanagers).
They are often argumentative and litigious. They seldom show tenderness and may
avoid intimacy; often they seem tense and brusque.
Paranoid personalities find causal connections everywhere; for them nothing is coincidental. They are constantly
on guard and are hypersensitive to critique. That means that they often take offense
where none is intended. Often they have problems with understanding humor. They appear cold and, in fact, often avoid becoming
intimate with others. Often pride themselves on their rationality, objectivity and fairness. Paranoid managers rarely come
forward to seek help from subordinates.
Often paranoia combines with "toxic incompetence" as they cannot make decision on time (analysis paralysis), insists
of creating tons of useless documentation and due to this skip important project milestones, etc.
Fear of exposure of paranoid manager is blended into a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspiciousness.
An inability to trust, doubts about others' loyalty, distortion and fabrication of personal
histories, qualifications and facts, misinterpretation, and bearing grudges unnecessarily are generally hallmarks
of the disorder. Pathological and instinctive aggressive counter-attack, the need to control others is also a prominent
feature. They like to collect evidence of subordinates. Paranoid managers often
can be classified as "raw bullies", as in relations with subordinates they prefer to rely on brute force and direct intimidation.
Tendency to micromanage subordinates is often combined with paranoia and bulling in various (but of course lesser then
those classified as bullies or as paranoid) degrees, but often demonstrate itself as a separate distinct condition close
to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OSD). Micromanagers are always authoritarian
personalities and demonstrate typical for the latter category bouts of anger(Borderline
Rage). Reverse is not true, some authoritarians avoid micromanaging. Micromanagers often have almost pathological neatness;
the latter is especially typical for women. Especially dangerous are paranoid incompetent micromanagers (PIMM)
the type which we will study in more detail on a separate set of pages:
Micromanagers is one of the few areas were gender stereotyping might provide some survival benefits. Women tend
to be more detail oriented, and female corporate psychopaths more often tend to behave like micromanagers. Female PIMM
can be mean, evil, vindictive and quite petty. If a female boss is insecure about her skills and abilities
she is more likely to exhibit PIMM behavior. Female PIMM are usually more skilled and use more often indirect aggression.
Often micromanagers are simultaneously can be classified as paranoid managers. Among common traits are complete absence
of trust in the staff, pathological need for control, pathologic dissatisfaction with results, and recurring "tantrums."
Many of PIMM can be also classified as bullies but again they, especially female PIMM, prefer indirect aggression to
direct. Usually, female PIMM encourage "little birds" to rest on their shoulders and whisper all forms of gossip.
This, these minions believe, ingratiates them to their bosses.
Narsisstic managers are not that different from other types and also suffer from compulsive need for control ("control
freaks"). Narcissistic behavior (aka inventive personality type) is dominated by compulsive desire to project positive image
resulting in unstable behavior with emotional outbursts caused by insecurity and weakness rather than any real feelings
of confidence or self-esteem. They are very sensitive to criticism and do not accept slightest criticism from below. They
often can be simultaneously classified both as bullies and micromanagers. As they need to steal all the achievements of
subordinates to built their image they are typically "gatekeepers" who try tightly control all the communications channels
with the superiors'. Can be quite paranoid and react inadequately on any threat to their projected image.
The narcissistic bosses are characterized by "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for
admiration, and lack of empathy," often evidenced as envy, taking advantage of others, an exaggerated sense
of self-importance and entitlement, and arrogant or haughty behavior. There is not much hope for the poor shmacs toiling
for the narcissistic personality-disordered boss who demands perfection, absolute loyalty, and 24/7 devotion to the job.
Manipulative psychopaths are probably the smoothest of corporate psychopaths. Here we will mean a class of corporate
psychopath who excels in manipulative behaviors including, but not limited to flattery and seduction. All psychopaths use
this to a certain extent, but for this type this is a preferred tactic.
While this feature is prominent, other features typical for corporate psychopath are usually present too. They are very
similar to paranoid managers in their behavior toward subordinates, but unlike paranoids are capable sometimes using flattery
and seduction.
Unlike bullies they prefer indirect aggression to direct. Often they have tendency to break rules and exposit "grey"
area in their favor. This distinguishes them from paranoids. Like narcissists they fear becoming less valued, if their underlings
get any recognition for exemplary work. Manipulator bosses are backstabbers who'll go to frightening lengths to look good
to their superiors.
Typically have a dual personality syndrome and behave completely differently with superiors then with subordinates. Here
is how they are described in one of Monster career self-help
articles:
The Manipulator Boss
Also known as the Machiavellian boss, this type is extremely intelligent and one of the most dangerous. The manipulator
boss is highly focused, very motivated, and always has a secret plan. He looks at people
as a means to an end. The world is a giant pyramid and the apex is his. People he touches or runs over
on the way to the top are casualties he writes off. If you work for a manipulator, watch your back. Your best bet is
to be open and honest with him. Volunteer information. Your boss, who has long forgotten what truth is, will be left
impressed by it.
We need to distinguish between normal and abnormal incompetence. The latter is also called pathological incompetence
or colloquially "empty suits". It is usually quite toxic if the manager is aggressive. Unfortunately more often then
not it is correlated with extreme aggressiveness as well as other personality problems -- most toxically incompetent managers
are micromanagers or narcissists or bullies or some combination. No substance and not much style. Just very
sharp claws and elbows.
Such managers are more widespread that this is assumed in Harvard Business Scholl publications: in a large organization
competence is not the primary value. Politics, connections, and clever tactics can compensate for incompetence. The sad
truth that they are pretty typical in large organizations and for reasons completely different from The Peter Principle. In "bootlickocracy", the most
incompetents are valued for "different reasons" and can easily propel themselves into a supervisory role.
Toxic incompetence is usually correlated with various other personality disorders and is prominent among corporate psychopaths.
Common clues include:
Inability to make decisions: An incompetent boss often waffles over decisions that should be made instantly.
Tendency to make bad choices: Ineffectual bosses often make poorly planned, miscalculated decisions. Miraculously,
most incompetent bosses manage to save themselves at the 11th hour.
Reliance on subordinates to get work done: Incompetent bosses may not have a clue how to get their own jobs
done, yet they have the uncanny sense to rely on their teams to cover for them.
Ability to keep the job despite failings: You'd be shocked that this jerk kept his job. Don't be so
quick. Here is the really important revelation -- that's happens because your boss in not incompetent in dealing with
higher ups. And socially much more competent then you are. And most probably is quite psychopathic and as such quite
successful in "fogging" their glasses. A classic example are former secretaries who sleep with their former
bosses, while they provide them cover. Thos nice girls can be first class predators, so forget about
underestimating them even if their only computer skill is touch typing and their position is a director of computer
security, network architect, or even head of Unix administration group.
Psychopathic bosses are people that are so different from normal people that they can be truly called aliens. And those dramatic
differences cannot be understood in terms of antisocial rearing or development. They operate
using different set of assumptions, and it is the latter that makes them the natural "predators" of the corporate
world, "criminals without criminal offences".
In corporate environment psychopath is the person who fails to recognize, much less to empathize with, the personal human
dignity and rights of subordinates. That's why they are called "people without conscience".
They do not feel remorse at lying or manipulating, and they typically lie without limit creating an elaborate edifice of their fake
past. This "addiction
to lying" (and related inconsistencies in their descriptions of their past) is probably the most telling early warning sign about psychopath. Typically they "invent" their past. They have
trouble with teamwork for the same reason. They will say one thing to one person, and something
different to someone else.
As psychopaths are addicted to lying, they frequently contradict themselves.
Typically they also enjoy harming and bullying others. In young age they are often cruel to animals...
And it is difficult to understand how alien they are from "common people". To a certain extent they are insane. Please note that "sanity" does not mean perfection; it merely means sufficient
engagement with the real world and society to allow us to survive both day-by-day and in the long term –
thus “sane” individuals usually tend to obey traffic laws, learn from their mistakes and practical experience and, in the
case of moral sanity, they recognize in others their worth and their capacity for joy and suffering. Psychopaths are
by definition reckless. This actions aren't merely misguided, but often are clinically dysfunctional. That's why
they often self-destruct.
Furthermore, sanity implies an ability of introspection: capacity to critically evaluate one’s experience, to distinguish
fact from fiction, and to tune behavior, to adapt to the real world. Insanity, by implication, suggests a significant level
of detachment from reality and inability to change one behavior despite negative feedback from
the environment. For example, a psychopath not only can't recognize the human worth and the capacity
for pleasure and pain in others, he does not recognize any value of that. For him treating people like objects is "normal"
and any empathy is for suckers. In this sense he/she is living in an "unreal", artificial world. Detached for reality
world, the world were no empathy exits. It is often correlates with other psychological disorders such as
paranoia.
The presence or absence of
conscience and related lack of emotions is a deep human division, arguably as significant as intelligence, race, and closer then many would think
to gender differences.
We don't know what makes psychopath ticks and how they acquire the set of behavioral patterns they demonstrate. So most
of modern literature is limited to "traits based description". For extensive list of traits see
The psychopath in the corner office. This "trait classification" method
that prevails in the literature is very limited and in general should be considered unscientific. As such, it overlaps with
"popular urban mythology". Still even mythology is better then nothing and we do not have any other approach that is really
better.
You need to understand that those description are pretty much ad hoc. Reality is more complex and does not fit
well within this rigid scheme. Often traits are intermixed in a unique way that defy classification. That's why you need
really put an effort into studying your particular type and
documenting his/her behavior to get some
real insights into particular beast you are dealing with. One important variable partially omitted is the level of intellect
(also low IQ is reflected in Empty Suits (Aggressive Incompetent Managers) type).
Often psychopaths have high or very high IQ.
There are probably several more important factors that were omitted. For example, gender differences are also very important
and color psychopathic behavior in a unique way. See Female Sociopaths
Methods of attacks used by psychopathic bosses vary but one common is based on performance reviews. There are several
traps there you can and should avoid. See Surviving a Bad Performance
Review
The simplest way to get some additional insight would be checkpoint list based on typical traits displayed by psychopaths.
See The psychopath in the corner office
For psychopaths the office environment is a theatre of war and like in any war ends justify means. So dirty tricks are ok as
French proverb A la guerre, comme a la guerre implies. They are typically used by psychopaths without any constrains (spreading dirty rumors is the specialty of
female sociopath and those skills are usually polished since childhood to perfection.). The greatest variety is observable
from Machiavellians Manipulators but sophistication is typical for psychopath in
general. See Machiavellians Manipulators Tricks.
You should remember famous saying that "War is a continuation of policy by other means" and don't overreact.
Also the "fog of
war" (i.e., in the face of incomplete, dubious, and often completely erroneous information and high levels of fear, doubt, and
excitement) complicate rational assessment of the situation so delays with the reaction might in many cases be not
detrimental, but advantageous. Actually studying war tactics which were discussed for example in famous Clausewitz On War (available free
from
clausewitz.com.) and The Art of War is not
a bad idea. Among them (cited from Wikipedia):
the dialectical approach to military analysis
the methods of "critical analysis"
the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism
the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war
the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense
the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)
"friction" - the disparity between the ideal performance of units, organisation or systems and their actual
performance in real world scenarios (Book I, Chapter VII)
strategic and operational "centers of gravity"[11]
the "culminating point of the offensive"
the "culminating point of victory"
There are several good books on the subject that you should definitely read. Stakes are so high that any additional ammo
worth much more then its nominal cost. See a list of suggestions in Toxic managers: The Problem
of Corporate Psychopaths. But again, you should took information provided with a grain of salt.
Watching films that
depict psychopath also provide some additional insight and this way of study should not be overlooked. Unlike real events you
can watch the film over and over again and that's enhance the understanding of specific tricks and attack methods. See
Psychopaths in Movies.
Some behavior patterns are really easier to study via movies.
This is especially true about female sociopaths. For example there is certain logic in outbursts of anger used by psychopath.
They are not completely spontaneous, but more of a sign that you entered the territory they already staked. Or they want something
that you refuse to give. The same is true for authoritarians (authoritarian rage). See
Understanding Borderline Rage.
At the same time, being reserved is very important. One of the tactics used is to provoked you into
a burst of your own impulsive behavior as this way psychopath can play victim, while being actually an aggressor. See
Anger trap
From comments to the article: "Isn’t it amazing how London and
other major financial centers seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to these
oligarchs? No one asks too many questions. From what I have read, real estate
taxes on expensive homes are very low in London. Very few people will be saying
kaddish over the death of this one time thug."
Here’s where it gets even more interesting. Last summer,
Berezovsky’s Chechen links came to the surface in a $6.5
billion London lawsuit that he had brought (and lost)
against Roman Abramovich, a rival Russian oligarch.
Abramovich claimed during the trial that Boris had links
to Chechen terrorists, while an ex-Chechen separatist
claimed that Boris financed separatists in the 1990s.
Berezovsky denied these and other allegations. But
the judge in the case — Mrs. [Elizabeth] Justice
Gloster — valued what she called Abramovich’s
“responsible approach to giving answers which he could
honestly support.”
On the other hand, she annihilated
Berezovsky. She declared that Boris had been an
“unimpressive, and inherently unreliable, witness, who
regarded truth as a transitory, flexible concept, which
could be moulded to suit his current purposes. At times
the evidence he gave was deliberately dishonest.” At
other times, the judge concluded, Berezovsky had
“deluded himself into believing his own version of
events.” She ordered him to pay Abramovich’s legal fees,
which exceeded $100 million.
Of course, Klebnikov had concluded that much about
Berezovsky nearly two decades ago. Recalls Forbes’
London counsel, David Hooper, one of the world’s top
media-defense lawyers: "The man was a fairly polished
liar because one of the things that Paul accused him of
was how he milked his links with [Russian President
Boris] Yeltsin and set up bank accounts for Yeltsin.
Berezovsky denied it, but in the Abramovich case it
suited him to change his story and say the opposite — so
his evidence now became that he did have those close
links with Yeltsin, and he claimed that that is what
made him so valuable to Abramovich. He was a brazen
liar, but Mrs. Justice Gloster saw through his
mendacity."
nirvichara
Judging by Berezovsky’ psychological profile he would never kill
himself, no matter how much he suffered. Can he kill anybody else like
Paul Khlebnikov for example ?
Absolutely and with very high probability.
No doubt, Berezovsky was very educated and clever person, but he also
was a pathologically self-centered , egoistical , greedy beyond reason
and ambitious person. This deadly combination made him a cold-blooded
killer. Not that he was making killing himself, but he was a mastermind
of many political killings, though unproved in court of law and thus
speculative.
rocky2345
Isn’t it amazing how London and other major financial centers seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to these oligarchs? No one asks too many questions. From what I have read, real estate taxes on expensive homes are very low in London. Very few people will be saying kaddish over the death of this one time thug.
Boris Berezovsky could have, indeed, committed suicide. He was
miserable in the final months of his life. A man who once flew only
chartered flights was reduced to bumming $5,000 off a friend to buy
an airplane ticket recently and reportedly sent a note to President
Vladimir Putin telling the leader how great he was.
At the height of his powers in 1997, a businessman proposed a
project to Berezovsky that he said could reap $25 million in
profits. When Berezovsky turned it down, explaining that he "doesn't
get involved with anything worth less than $50 million," he wasn't
grandstanding in the least.
Yet Berezovsky was never a true businessman. Other people ran his
businesses for him, people such as billionaire
Roman Abramovich, who discarded Berezovsky the moment he fell
out of favor with the authorities.
Above all, Berezovsky was a con man. Money was necessary
for him, of course, but only as one of the devilish addictions that
dominated his life: power, influence and sex.
Berezovsky had a nasty habit of lying. One of Berezovsky's
favorite tricks was to call someone and inform them that he had
appointed them to an influential post when, in fact, he had done
nothing of the sort. He had only been present in the Kremlin when
the appointment was made.
Berezovsky was the most highly placed con man in history, and he
had an almost superhuman ability to translate his delirious
fantasies into reality.
He was not the sole force behind Putin's rise to power: That was
actually a decision made by "the Family," former President
Boris Yeltsin's inner circle. But Berezovsky sincerely believed
that he was responsible for Putin's political rise in 1999 and had
no qualms about reminding everyone — including Putin — of it. That
proved to be his fatal mistake.
Even after Berezovsky was no longer calling the shots, Abramovich
paid him $2 billion for his stake in Sibneft and RusAl. Over the
next 10 years, Berezovsky spent every last penny of that money on
women, luxury villas, yachts, chartered flights and pointless
lawsuits.
Following his unsuccessful lawsuit against Abramovich, Berezovsky
was a broken man, a complete wreck. In reality, he should have won
the case, but he torpedoed his own chances with
his deeply rooted habit of lying
— this time under oath in a London court.
What he didn't understand is that you can act like that in Moscow
and get away with it, but not in London. In that case, Berezovsky
claimed he had created Sibneft and opened the doors to the Kremlin
halls of power. But those words held little weight because he had
testified during a previous legal dispute with Forbes that he had no
relationship to Sibneft and was not the "godfather of the Kremlin."
Losing the case to Abramovich was the final blow for Berezovsky,
and it left him with huge debts and no hope. Nobody needed him
anymore — not even his own family members, who had come to see
Berezovsky as their endless source of wealth.
Berezovsky, who not long ago wrote a letter about how he would
stage a revolution in Russia, ended up appealing to Putin for
permission to return to his homeland. Putin ignored him. After that,
there was nothing left for him but to die.
I'm going to try to compare/contrast the "psychopathic" and "sociopathic"
traits of the elite, wealthy, higher-echelon class of the new world order.
Understanding the way they think is beneficial because they even admit that
90% of the war on the people is psychological.
Why do I want to do this? Because it seems like the people are afraid of
them because they don't know how they tick. If you figure out the behavior
and mindset of the elite, you de-construct the matrix and it's all laid out
in front of you. But since most people are NOT psychopathic or sociopathic,
they cannot understand why a criminal element would want to "cull" 80-90% of
the population, why they would be so bloodthirsty, why they are ruthless,
why they like to hurt the innocent more than punishing the wicked, etc. When
faced with the prospect that some people just really are that wealthy and
mentally ill.
When people are inbred as much as some of the elite have, they begin to
display abnormal behavioral symptoms along with genetic birth defects
("shallow gene pool" effect). These people are sick and twisted emotionally
and psychologically, but it's important to understand the different KINDS of
psychopathy, the way they operate, because God KNOWS they've been doing that
to us for hundreds of years. Time to dissect the mind of the criminal elite.
The psychopath is one of the most fascinating and distressing problems of
human experience. For the most part, a psychopath never remains attached
to anyone or anything. They live a "predatory" lifestyle. They feel little
or no regret, and little or no remorse - except when they are caught. They
need relationships, but see people as obstacles to overcome and be
eliminated. If not, they see people in terms of how they can be used. They
use people for stimulation, to build their self-esteem and they invariably
value people in terms of their material value (money, property, etc..).
(Sounds like the entire Rockefeller family and the majority of wall street
execs and washington lobbyists)
A psychopath can have high verbal intelligence, but they typically lack
"emotional intelligence". They can be expert in manipulating others by
playing to their emotions. There is a shallow quality to the emotional
aspect of their stories (i.e., how they felt, why they felt that way, or how
others may have felt and why). The lack of
emotional intelligence is the first good sign you may be dealing with a
psychopath. A history of criminal behavior in which they do not seem to
learn from their experience, but merely think about ways to not get caught
is the second best sign.(This is becoming more and more
obvious as time goes on that the elite's plan for world government is
falling apart at the seams, and the public is waking up and finding out what
they have done. Instead of learning their lesson (humans are not their
slaves, that to try to manipulate humanity and stunting the growth of the
competition is a crime against God, etc.) and backing off, though, the elite
have merely looked for ways to do it anyway and get away with it.
The following is a list of items based on the research of Robert Hare, Ph.D.
which is derived from the "The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, .1991,
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems." These are the most highly researched and
recognized characteristics of psychopathic personality and behavior.
* glibness/superficial charm
* grandiose sense of self worth
* need for stimulation/prone to boredom
* pathological lying
* conning/manipulative
* lack of remorse or guilt
* shallow emotional response
* callous/lack of empathy
* parasitic lifestyle
* poor behavioral controls
* promiscuous sexual behavior * early behavioral problems(the elite children are no doubt
raised by nannies most of their early childhood, and extravagantly expensive
prep school programs. The nannies and teachers are encouraged to promote
narcissistic, elitist and nihilistic behavior among their students, and to
follow "traditional standards of behavior" (double standard) of the
elite--that they can do whatever they want. Literally. So when these elites
display behavioral problems as children, they're probably rewarded for it,
or it is swept under the rug.
* lack of realistic long term goals (goal-setting isn't a problem
for the elite. REALISTIC goal-setting might be, though--like wanting to grab
the guns from the American people--not too realistic, guys)
* impulsivity (8-8-8, anyone?)
* irresponsibility (also displayed on 8-8-8, as the REAL actions of the
Georgians were blasted all over the web by the infowarriors out there--Good
job, guys.
)
* failure to accept responsibility for their own actions ( brzezinski
not taking public responsibility for encouraging the Chinese to support Pol
Pot)
* many short term relationships
* juvenile delinquency(see above at "early behavioral problems")
* revocation of conditional release (not a problem, they never go
to jail)
* criminal versatility (BECAUSE they've gotten away with so much, they can
take it to an extreme level before any kind of public outrage about
anything)
The difference between sociopathy and psychopathy, according to Hare, may
"reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the
disorder."[59]
David T. Lykken proposes psychopathy and sociopathy are two distinct kinds
of antisocial personality disorder. He believes psychopaths are born with
temperamental differences such as impulsivity, cortical underarousal, and
fearlessness that lead them to risk-seeking behavior and an inability to
internalize social norms.(I believe most of the key players for the
nwo are psychopaths: the rockefellers, the rothschilds, on down to the
"pseudo-elites" like politicians and top lobbyists (like the Bushes, the
Clintons, any of the Bohemian Grove members in general)
On the other hand, he claims sociopaths have relatively normal
temperaments; their personality disorder being more an effect of negative
sociological factors like parental neglect, delinquent peers, poverty, and
extremely low or extremely high intelligence.(they just described
the 20-25% of the white collar class that knowingly lets the elite get away
with everything. they are usually highly intelligent but compartmentalized
to a degree. They know that what they're doing is wrong, they know the
elites are doing wrong, but they choose to do nothing about it because they
like the mini-power trip it gives them, and the feeling of being "special"
and "elite" even though it's obvious that they live in bondage to the new
world order. This would also apply to TV personalities who are obvious about
towing the party line)
Both personality disorders are, of course, the result of an interaction
between genetic predispositions and environmental factors, but
psychopathy leans towards the hereditary whereas sociopathy tends towards
the environmental.[54]
Relationship to antisocial personality disorder
The criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder were derived from the
Research Diagnositic Criteria developed by Spitzer, Endicott and Robbins
(1978). There was concern in the development of DSM-IV there was too much
emphasis on research data and not enough on the more traditional
psychopathic traits such as a lack of empathy, superficial charm, and
inflated self appraisal. Field trial data indicated some of these traits
of psychopathy derived from the Psychopathy Checklist developed by Hare et
al., 1992, were difficult to assess reliably and thus were not included.
Lack of remorse is an example. The antisocial person may express
genuine or false guilt or remorse and/or offer excuses and rationalizations.
However, a history of criminal acts in itself suggests little remorse or
guilt. [60](This is the majority of the key nwo players in the
biotech and military/intelligence fields, like the ones who KNEW about the
HIV in the blood used for Factor VIII, but did nothing to stop it from being
shipped out. It also pertains to the big university professors who like to
go on and on about how humanity is a scourge upon the earth and how they
can't wait until 90% of us DIE--http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190479,00.html.
)
The American Psychiatric Association removed the word "psychopathy" or
"psychopathic", and started using the term "Antisocial Personality" to cover
the disorder in DSM-II.[61] (Maybe their bosses felt targeted.)
The World Health Organization's stance in its ICD-10 refers to
psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality, asocial personality, and
amoral personality as synonyms for dissocial personality disorder.
Further, the DSM was meant as a diagnostic guide, and the term psychopath
best fit the criteria met for antisocial personality disorder.
[edit] Relationship to sex offenders (I think the Franklin
cover-up and DynCorp's recent doings, not to mention the mk-Ultra victims
like Cathy O'brien that claim sexual abuse show a direct relationship
between psychopaths and sex crime--particularly sex with children. But the
"research studies" basically just say that "apples can be red or green but
that not everything red or green is an apple" and claims that the evidence
for psychopaths being pedophiles is "outdated". No, it's just not being
investigated)
No clinical definition of psychopathy indicates that psychopaths are
especially prone to commit sexually-oriented murders, and scientific
studies do not suggest that a large proportion of psychopaths have committed
these crimes.[62] Although some claim a large
proportion of such offenders have been classified as psychopathic,
this evidence comes from a single, unrepeated research study using the
Rorschach Inkblot Test, an invalid test for psychopathy and for sex
offenders,[63] references not considering psychopathy, [64] and studies
concerning sexual homicide, a somewhat different population than the general
class of sex offenders and not from meta-studies combining repeatable
results.
Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in
tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their
tendency to make a good, likable first impression. Psychopaths have a
superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything
without concern for accuracy or truth. (This is the scariest thing about Barack Obama...he's nothing like
the idiot monkey George W. Bush, he's like-able, he seems genuine, and he's
totally dangerous because psychopaths on this level can actually lie without
getting caught...they are BOTH psychopaths AND sociopaths. They are
pathological liars, and are willing to say the opposite of what's really
going on and actually try to make people believe it. When a serial killer is
both a psychopath and sociopath, they tend to go a long time without getting
caught, such as the BTK killer or Jeffrey Dahmer).
This extends into their pathological lying and willingness to con and
manipulate others for personal gain or amusement. The prototypical
psychopath's emotions are described as a shallow affect, meaning their
overall way of relating is characterized by mere displays of friendliness
and other emotion for personal gain; the displayed emotion need not
correlate with felt emotion, in other words.(Like this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
, or the "Katrina effect"--remember this?
and this?
,and see how Obama doesn't seem to care when the lady is emotional
about rationed health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh6v2GEc4r8 and almost seems to not
understand or even care what that lady said, because he knew she was too
close to actually making him answer real questions about the health care
situation...
Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine
emotion to be short lived and egocentric with an overall cold demeanor.
Their behavior is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job
or defaulting on debts.[65] (The impulsivity the banker bailout and
the irresponsibility of Barack Obama as one of the lead proponents (and
stakeholders) of the hijacking of our economy by lobbyists and wall street
execs and banker bosses is one of the biggest indicators that our government
has been taken over by a psychopathic element and is no longer working for
us--especially since they got 1,000:1 phone calls saying "NO" to the bailout
in the first place--By passing it anyway, at gunpoint basically, was very
telling of their mindset towards us now--that was them saying to the
American people, "SHUT UP--WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU WANT, WE WANT COMPLETE
CONTROL OF THE MONEY SUPPLY)
Most research studies of psychopaths have taken place among prison
populations. This remains a limitation on its applicability to a general
population. Findings indicate psychopathic convicts have a 2.5 time
higher probability of being released from jail than undiagnosed ones even
though they are more likely to recidivate.[66]
It has been shown that punishment and behavior modification techniques do
not improve the behavior of what Hare, and other followers of this theory
call a psychopath. Psychopathic individuals have been regularly observed to
become more cunning and hiding their behavior better. It has been suggested
by them traditional therapeutic approaches actually
make psychopaths if not worse, then far more adept at manipulating others
and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only
incurable but also untreatable.[67]
Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential
consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves.
They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught,
disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.[68]
Psychopaths may often be successful in the
military, as they will more readily participate in combat than most
soldiers.[69]
(Yeah, they just thought they'd tag that on in the ending, there--"Oh, btw,
there are lots of psychos in the military"--that's wikipedia, for you.)
(The following commentary includes material obtained by the National
Association of Chiefs of Police from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Behavioral Analysis Unit.)
Psychopathy is a personality disorder manifested in people who use a mixture
of charm, manipulation, intimidation, and occasionally violence to control
others, in order to satisfy their own selfish needs. Although the concept of
psychopathy has been known for centuries, the FBI leads the world in the
research effort to develop a series of assessment tools, to evaluate the
personality traits and behaviors attributable to psychopaths.
Interpersonal traits include glibness, superficial charm, a grandiose sense
of self-worth, pathological lying, and the manipulation of others. The
affective traits include a lack of remorse and/or guilt, shallow affect, a
lack of empathy, and failure to accept responsibility.
The lifestyle
behaviors include stimulation-seeking behavior, impulsivity,
irresponsibility, parasitic orientation, and a lack of realistic life goals.
Research has demonstrated that in those criminals who are psychopathic,
scores vary, ranging from a high degree of psychopathy to some measure of
psychopathy. However, not all violent offenders are psychopaths and not all
psychopaths are violent offenders. If violent offenders are psychopathic,
they are able to assault, rape, and murder without concern for legal, moral,
or social consequences. This allows them to do what they want, whenever they
want. Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to
high-profile and powerful positions in society including political
officeholders.
The relationship between psychopathy and serial killers is particularly
interesting. All psychopaths do not become serial murderers. Rather, serial
murderers may possess some or many of the traits consistent with
psychopathy. Psychopaths who commit serial murder do not value human life
and are extremely callous in their interactions with their victims. This is
particularly evident in sexually motivated serial killers who repeatedly
target, stalk, assault, and kill without a sense of remorse. However,
psychopathy alone does not explain the motivations of a serial killer.
What doesn't go unnoticed is the fact that some of the character traits
exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the
political arena. While not exhibiting physical violence, many political
leaders display varying degrees of anger, feigned outrage and other
behaviors. They also lack what most consider a "shame" mechanism. Quite
simply, most serial killers and many professional politicians must mimic
what they believe, are appropriate responses to situations they face such as
sadness, empathy, sympathy, and other human responses to outside stimuli.
Understanding psychopathy becomes particularly critical to law enforcement
during a serial murder investigation and upon the arrest of a psychopathic
serial killer. The crime scene behavior of psychopaths is likely to be
distinct from other offenders. This distinct behavior can assist law
enforcement in linking serial cases.
Psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes, such as
sympathy for their victims or remorse/guilt over their crimes. They do
possess certain personality traits that can be exploited, particularly their
inherent narcissism, selfishness, and vanity. Specific themes in past
successful interviews of psychopathic serial killers focused on praising
their intelligence, cleverness, and skill in evading capture.
Experts recognize that more research is needed concerning the links between
serial murder and psychopathy, in order to understand the frequency and
degree of psychopathy among serial murderers. This may assist law
enforcement in understanding and identifying serial murderers.
Over the past twenty years, law enforcement and experts from a number of
varying disciplines have attempted to identify specific motivations for
serial murderers and to apply those motivations to different typologies
developed for classifying serial murderers. These range from simple,
definitive models to complex, multiple-category typologies that are laden
with inclusion requirements. Most typologies are too cumbersome to be
utilized by law enforcement during an active serial murder investigation,
and they may not be helpful in identifying an offender.
As most homicides are committed by someone known to the victim, police focus
on the relationships closest to the victim. This is a successful strategy
for most murder investigations. The majority of serial murderers, however,
are not acquainted with or involved in a consensual relationship with their
victims.
For the most part, serial murder involves strangers with no visible
relationship between the offender and the victim. This distinguishes a
serial murder investigation as a more nebulous undertaking than that of
other crimes. Since the investigations generally lack an obvious connection
between the offender and the victim, investigators instead attempt to
discern the motivations behind the murders, as a way to narrow their
investigative focus.
Serial murder crime scenes can have bizarre features that may cloud the
identification of a motive. The behavior of a serial murderer at crime
scenes may evolve throughout the series of crimes and manifest different
interactions between an offender and a victim. It is also extremely
difficult to identify a single motivation when there is more than one
offender involved in the series.
Identifying a homicide series is easier in rapidly-developing, high profile
cases involving low risk victims. These cases are reported to law
enforcement upon discovery of the crimes and draw immediate media attention.
In contrast, identifying a series involving high risk victims in multiple
jurisdictions is much more difficult. This is primarily due to the high risk
lifestyle and transitory nature of the victims. Additionally, the lack of
communication between law enforcement agencies and differing records
management systems impede the linkage of cases to a common offender.
While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their
similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a
psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many
officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association
of Chiefs of Police and he's a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).
In addition, he's the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund's weblog.
Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning
actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights
nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In
addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university
and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served
on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers
throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines
including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a
news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com. He's also a
columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's
syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over
100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN
Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to
COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subcription"
on the subject line.
Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI's
behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality
traits common to a couple of professions.
Prison Walls
Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has
assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of
self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic
serial killers.
But -- and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive
discussion -- these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe
you already suspected.)
Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the
exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but
not for office.
Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing
their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal
consequences and with absolutely no remorse.
"This allCapitol Hill Domeows them to do what they want, whenever they
want," he wrote. "Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who
are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including
political officeholders."
Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we're paying their
salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.
We don't know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with
his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand ...
He adds:
"While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their
similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a
psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many
officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
-- Andrew Malcolm
We are absolutely not seeking to manipulate Ticket readers by glibly saying
with superficial charm that they are certainly among the world's most
intelligent people. Nor do we seek to manipulate every one of them to click
here for Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item.
What a disappointment. I was married to a psychopath and should have known better than to buy this book. A psychopath has
a mental/character flaw that may range from serial killer to just no good and abusive but a psychopath is a psychopath
regardless of the extent of his/her appearance or damage. Some normal people may have behaviors similar to a psychopath but
that does not make them almost a psychopath. Normal people may be selfish, misguided or even
down right mean but they feel love, hate, guilt, shame, joy sadness just like we do...even if it is suppressed, it is there.
The main difference between normal and psychopath is not behavior but the lack of any emotion, an inability to love,
empathize or even care about another person.
A psychopath is hard wired, cannot be cured and is a psychopath regardless of the extent of the perceived or actual harm
inflicted. There are a lot of psychopaths out there; this author just wants to claim they are not quite psychopaths.
Believe me when I say the normal looking, acting and semi successful lawyer I married was a full blooded psychopath. He
put on a beautiful show of love and kindness and he violently raped me and laughingly humiliated me on our wedding night and
for the entire length of our marriage. I had instantly become a possession. The show was over except for public display. He
targeted me because I was vulnerable because my mother died and I had no family support. His only pleasure from then on was
to use and abuse me to boost his ego, to make himself think he was better. It took me ten years and two children to prepare
myself to get out.
Do not be deceived by this misleading book. Be afraid, a psychopath is a very dangerous creature without conscience
pretending to be your best friend or soul mate...there is nothing almost about them! They will turn on you as soon as
you are entrapped. As Sandra Brown, an expert on psychopathy says, psychopaths cause inevitable harm. Buy her books
and do not read or be misled by this drivel.
RONALD AMON :
You missed their schtick. They are trying to sell a book to a certain market and trying to interest as many as they
possibly can in purchasing it. So they bend things a little. As in "almost." Which can pretty much cover any and everyone at
one time or another. Or no one. Take your pick.
Christine:
You know what, Betsy? I believe you are right. I think this book probably should have had the title of BPD (Borderline
Personality Disorder) or BNPD (Borderline Narcissistic Personality Disorder) because many sociopaths traits are similar to
them. I'll bet the previous commenter (Ronald Amon) was also onto something because there are so many titles that already
deal with the subject (BPD and BNPD) that they figured lets put the name sociopath in the title to make it sound more scary
and get folks to buy the book.
I'm sorry for your past troubles with your psychopath husband! And you are correct
Phyllis Antebi Ph.D:
Friendly is safe and unfriendly is not safe. If the person lies, cheats, or steals, (any or all of these) he is someone
without a conscience. Who cares about labels! That's for obsessive compulsive people to ponder. If it hurts when you least
expect it, you are being abused.
Betsy:
With a psychopath friendly can be the most dangerous part. They lure you in with a smooth
loving facade and then hook you into the mind control, abuse and total annihilation if possible.
But you have the rest right on. I love, " If it hurts when you least expect it, you are being
abused." So very true and well put.
Pompom:
I believe the book was well written but seemed to drift away to other areas of personality
disorders far too much. There are so many books written on narcissistic disorder or other disorders that are available that
I believe the author could have only highlighted these disorders relative to the subject matter rather than filling up half
the book with the other disorders and their traits.
My greatest regret that I am not at sociopath. I suspect I am not alone. I have written before that
we live in the age of awkwardness but a strong case could be made that you believe in the age of the sociopath. They
advantageous Intellivision for example and essentially every television genre. Cartoon shows have been fascinated we
sociopathic fathers ( with varying degree of sanity) ever since the writeup of the Simpson realized that Homer
was a better central character then Bart. Showing that cartoon children are capable of radical evil as well, Eric
Cartman of South Park has been sprouting racial invective and I hatching evil plots for over a decade at this point.
On the other end of the spectrum, flagships of high-brow cable drama have almost all been sociopaths of various stripes:
them if you're the Tony soprano in the Sopranos is a seductive impostor non grata and madmen and it is a serial killer
legal character of Dexter. In between want my name the various reality show contestants betraying each other in their
attempt to avoid being "voted off the iceland"; Dr. House, who seeks an diagnosis with complete in difference
and even hostility toward his patients' feelings; the womanizing character played by Charlie Sheen in the sitcom Two
and a Half Men; Glenn close's evil, plotting lawyer in damages; zaniness about badass Jack Bauer who will stop
at nothing to indicate sociopathic devotion to stopping terrorism in 24 -- and of course various sociopathic pursuers
of profit, whether in business or in politics who populate the evening news.
On a certain level, this plan may not seem like anything new. It seems as though most cultures have lionized ruthless
individuals who made their own rules, even if they ultimately feel constrained to punish them for their self-assertion
as well. yet there is something new going on in this entertainment trend that go beyond the understandable desire to
fantasize about living without restrictions of society. The fantasy sociopath is somehow outside social norms
- largely bereft of human sympathy, for instance, and generally amoral -- any yet be simultaneously a master manipulator,
who can instrumentilise the life social norms to get what he or she wants.
Dictate this social mastery that sets the contemporary fantasy sociopath apart from both the sociopath
and the real-life sociopath.
While many of the characters named above are ruthless killers, they're generally not psychopathic or crazy in the
sense of seeking destruction for its own sake, nor do they generally have some kind of uncontrollable compulsion to
struggle with. Indeed, they are usually much more in control of their actions than normal "sane" person and much more
capable of creating long-term plans with clear and achievable and goals.
This level of control also set them apart from clinical definition of sociopathy. I do not wish to delve into the
DSM or any other authority in the field of psychology, where the usefulness of sociopathy is a diagnostic category is
in any sense disputed. Yet as I understand it, real-life sociopath are pitiable creatures indeed. Often victim of severe
abuse, they are bereft of any human connection, unable to tell truth from lies, champing and manipulative for a few
minutes at most, but with no real ability to formulate meaningful goals. The contemporary fantasy off sociopathy picks
and chooses from those characteristics, emphasizing the lack of moral intuition, human empathy, and emotional connection.
Far from being the obstacles they would be in real life, these characteristics are what enable the fantasy sociopath
to be his sole amazingly successful.
It's curious to think, that power would stem so directly from a lack of social connection. After all, we leave in
their wallet where we are constantly exhorted to "network", to live by the maxim that "it's all about who you know".
Yet the link between power and disconnection ... and pattern in recent entertainment sometimes displayed in their most
cartoonish possible way. Take, for instance, Matt Damon character in various Bourne movies (The Bourne Identity, The
Bourne Supremacy, and The Bourne Ultimatus -- soon to be followed, as Damon has joked, by the Bourne redundancy). In
the first film, Jason Bourne is fished out of the ocean with no idea of who he is. As the story unfolds, he finds that
he is unexpectedly the master of everything he tries to do: from hand to hand combat, the stunt driving, to speaking
apparently every language on earth.
His skills apply interpersonally as well, as very first woman he meets (Franka Polente) becomes his partner in crime
and then lover.
The narrative explanation for Bourne superhero status is an elite CIA training program. Yet that training is directly
tied Bourne's amnesia, as the program goal is to create the ultimate sleeper agents. The program culminates with the
thorough brainwashing, after reach the agents don't remember they're agents until their programming is triggered by
some signal. The life they CIA set up for their age and ease in true sociopathic style, only an act that can be left
behind at any time.
What's more, a later film reveals that Bourne's trainers only regarded him as truly ready to work, what they had
and used him to kill in cold blood someone he believed to be an innocent man. Lack of social ties, and ruthless amorality
thus fit together seamlessly with virtual superpowers in this movie.
... ... ...
It is hard to believe, however, that the exploration of the dark side of the human psyche for its own sake is behind
the appeal of these sociopathic characters. What, then, is going on in this trend? my hypothesis is that sociopath
we watch on TV allow us to indulge in a kind of thought experiment, based on the question: "what if I really and truly
did not give a fuck about anyone?" And the answer they provide? " Then I would be powerful and free."
Sociopathy as reverse awkwardness
At first glance, that TV sociopath appears to be nearly the opposite of the awkward character. I've previously defined
awkwardness as they feeling of anxiety that I tempered my the validation of absence of a clear social norm. It would
have been when someone commit a social faus pas, such as spelling a racist joke (what I've called "everyday awkwardness"),
or it could occur in situations where there are no real social expectations to speak of -- for instance, in cross-cultural
encounters where one cannot appeal to a third "meta- culture" to mediate the interaction (what I have called "racial
awkwardness"). In both cases, we have thrown into a situation in which we don't know what to do. At the same time, however,
this violation of lack of social norms doesn't simply dissolve the social bond. Instead, awkwardness is a p particularly
powerful social experience, in which we feel the presence of others much more acutely -- and more than that, awkwardness
spread, making even innocent bystanders feel somehow caught up in his awkward feeling. This raw feeling of social connection
can be so anxiety producing, in fact, that there have been hypothesized that awkwardness comes first and social norms
are an attempt to cope with it.
In contrast of the sociopath, then, those lack of social connection makes him or her a master manipulator of social
norms, people caught up in awkwardness are rendered powerless by the intensity of their social connection. Thus we might
say that at second glance, the TV sociopath is the exact opposite to an awkward character -- the correspondence is the
perfect to ignore.
To understand why this connection might exist, I had like to look more closely at my distinction between violation
and the lack of social norm. The distinction between these two situations is not hard and fast, because in many cases,
it's not clear how react to the relation of social norm. Many social norms function is straightforward Commandments
-- for example, "thou shalt not take cuts in a line" -- but fail to prescribe a punishment or designate an agent who
is qualified to administer it. As a result, when someone does take cuts, there seems to be nothing anyone can do.
In fact, that person who does decide to confront the offender may well come out ducking like an asshole in the situation,
because in many cultural settings there is a strong bias again unnecessary confrontation. The awkward person seats and
fumes, or else confronts the cutter and quickly retreats. If we can define something like an everyday sociopath, it
would be the person who is not only callous enough to take cuts in the first place, but is able to manipulate social
expectations to shame the person who calls out the violation.
The transition to the fantasy of TV sociopathy comes when the awkward person shifts from "I hate that guy" to "I
wish were that guy." In everyday settings, this shift is unlikely. Even if the line is unbearably long, most well-adjusted
people would prefer not to disobey their ingrained social instincts and, if confronted with the queue-jumper, would
consoles himself with the thought that at least they are not such inconsiderate people, etc. Similar patterns repeat
themselves in other areas of life - a man may wish, for instance, that he where a suave seducer, but at the bottom he
feels that the seducer is there really a douche bag. Even though envy is probably inevitable, a feeling of moral superiority
is normally enough to stave off outright admiration of the everyday sociopath.
The term sociopath and psychopaths are often used interchangeably. We are talking about personality disorder
that people are born with. Neither psychopath nor sociopaths are capable of feeling remorse or guilt. They appear
to luck and conscience and have no regard for the rights or feelings of others. Those traits often
surface by the age of 15.
One of the first signs is often cruelty to animals, and I use that in the chapter which has a reference to Mark
thinking fire to a cat. So we've got terms for all with identical conditions, and the line between them is so vague
even psychiatrists find himself arguing over which is which.
These are people like Charles Manson and Ted Bundy people who has absolutely no sense of guilt about what they did,
performing horrible acts -- and yet they were just ask charming as they could be. They fit right with the society. My
good friend. True crime author used to sit at the desk right next to Ted Bundy's and thought he was delightful. He'd
even walk you out to her car to make sure she wasn't mugged. When she discovered she was a serial killer,
she was stunned. It's a strange, fascinating and horrifying condition.
When you read about these people as doing atrocious things, we tend to forget that they were not always adults. They
started out as children, as they grew up and they went to school with other children. So we can look around us today
and figure that we are going to them probably in every school in the nation growing up right around the normal kids.
They are developing in that situation and their practicing the skills that they will later use as monstrous adults. So I thought, why don't we see you what one of them might be like as a teenager?
As Ochberg implies, psychopaths don't have ethical considerations, and narcissists and asocial personalities don't care.
In layman's terms I think most of these fellows have a great hole in their being. They know that something is not right
with them, but their egos will not allow them to acknowledge it.
Those who gravitate toward the corporate power structures can be quite successful in some organizations. But despite
outward success they are always restless, unfulfilled, and tend to project their dissatisfaction outward and ascribe
it to others. If they succeed it is all them, but if they fail, someone else is at fault.
They are incapable of trust, because everything they do is a facade, a lie. Therefore they rarely have a real relationship
with their families, and at best view them as a desirable addition to their collection. They have utter contempt for
other people, although they will use flattery and other means to create a dependency while they are using them. And
after that is done, they will be discarded without another thought.
They are like sharks, endlessly seeking to fill their terrible emptiness with possessions, be they things or other people.
They are literally insatiable in their needs, and highly focused in their pursuit of them.
They are very clever in finding the weaknesses in people and organizations, and will exploit them ruthlessly. Ethics
and conscience provide no brake or boundaries on their willingness to say and do anything that is required to achieve
their ends. If you attempt to thwart, be prepared for something a little different, and completely off the hook in response.
It is really something to see them at work. The destruction they can wreak, sometimes with remarkably superficial charm
and high verbal acuity, is hard to describe until you see it in action.
They are always a challenge to the HR and compliance departments, and frequently end up badly, one way or the other.
It becomes a personal challenge to see how far one can go without being stopped, far beyond any personal needs or requirements.
Flouting the rules becomes a game in itself.
(CNN) – Are you or is someone you know a psychopath?
Wait – let's reframe that question.
Do you or someone you know fall somewhere on the psychopathic spectrum?
You may not know for sure until you listen to this week’s CNN Profile of Oxford University research
psychologist Kevin Dutton.
Dutton is author of the new book “The Wisdom of Psychopaths.”
As he explains in this interview, not all psychopaths are violent. In fact, there are many highly functioning
psychopaths. One may
even be your boss. And you can’t judge if a person is a psychopath by simply looking at him, or even from a brief
conversation.
Dutton maintains that many people have great success in highly skilled fields not in spite of but BECAUSE
of certain psychopathic traits, including a British neurosurgeon he interviewed.
Dutton may have been destined to study psychopaths. His father was one. Not a violent psychopath. A
charming one, as so many are. Wait until you hear Dutton describe how his father once conned a restaurant full of patrons.
After you listen to our interview with Professor Dutton – you can spend some time on a psychopathy questionnaire
- a "quiz" short version or a sign
in for a longer one.
Neither will provide a diagnosis. But your psychopathy radar will be better than ever.
Dutton’s wife of 13 years has had enough of his immersion in the world of psychopaths. You can hear
how he plans to address her concerns on this edition of CNN Profiles.
Editor's Note: Listen to the complete interview in the SoundCloud player above.
Over a 28-year-old single-malt scotch at the Scientific Study of Psychopathy's biennial bash in Montreal in 2011,
I asked Bob Hare, "When you look around you at modern-day society, do you think, in general, that we're becoming more
psychopathic?"
The eminent criminal psychologist and creator of the widely used Psychopathy Checklist paused before answering.
"I think, in general, yes, society is becoming more psychopathic," he said.
"I mean, there's stuff going on nowadays that we wouldn't have seen 20, even 10 years ago. Kids are becoming anesthetized
to normal sexual behavior by early exposure to pornography on the Internet. Rent-a-friend sites are getting more popular
on the Web, because folks are either too busy or too techy to make real ones. ... The recent hike in female criminality
is particularly revealing. And don't even get me started on Wall Street."
He's got a point. In Japan in 2011, a 17-year-old boy parted with one of his own kidneys so he could go out and buy
an iPad. In China, following an incident in which a 2-year-old baby was left stranded in the middle of a marketplace
and run over, not once but twice, as passersby went casually about their business, an appalled electorate has petitioned
the government to pass a good-Samaritan law to prevent such a thing from happening again.
And the new millennium has seemingly ushered in a wave of corporate criminality like no other. Investment scams,
conflicts of interest, lapses of judgment, and those evergreen entrepreneurial party tricks of good old fraud and embezzlement
are now utterly unprecedented in magnitude. Who's to blame? In an issue of the Journal of Business Ethics,
Clive R. Boddy, a former professor at the Nottingham Business School, contends that it's psychopaths, pure and simple,
who are at the root of all the trouble.
The law itself has gotten in on the act. At the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping trial, in Salt Lake City, the attorney
representing Brian David Mitchell—the homeless street preacher and self-proclaimed prophet who abducted, raped, and
kept the 14-year-old Elizabeth captive for nine months (according to Smart's testimony, he raped her pretty much every
day over that period)—urged the sentencing judge to go easy on his client, on the grounds that "Ms. Smart overcame it.
Survived it. Triumphed over it." When the lawyers start whipping up that kind of tune, the dance could wind up anywhere.
Of course, it's not just the lawyers. In a recent study by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, in London, 120
convicted street robbers were asked why they did it. The answers were revealing. Kicks. Spur-of-the-moment impulses.
Status. And financial gain. In that order. Exactly the kind of casual, callous behavior
patterns one often sees in psychopaths.
In fact, in a survey that has so far tested 14,000 volunteers, Sara Konrath and her team at the University of Michigan's
Institute for Social Research has found that college students' self-reported empathy levels (as measured by the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index, a standardized questionnaire containing such items as "I often have tender, concerned feelings for
people less fortunate than me" and "I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision") have
been in steady decline over the past three decades—since the inauguration of the scale, in fact, back in 1979. A particularly
pronounced slump has been observed over the past 10 years. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy
than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago," Konrath reports.
More worrisome still, according to Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, is that,
during this same period, students' self-reported narcissism levels have shot through the roof. "Many people see the
current group of college students, sometimes called 'Generation Me,' " Konrath continues, "as one of the most self-centered,
narcissistic, competitive, confident, and individualistic in recent history."
Precisely why this downturn in social values has come about is not entirely clear. A complex concatenation of environment,
role models, and education is, as usual, under suspicion. But the beginnings of an even more fundamental answer may
lie in a study conducted by Jeffrey Zacks and his team at the Dynamic Cognition Laboratory, at Washington University
in St. Louis. With the aid of fMRI, Zacks and his co-authors peered deep inside the brains of volunteers as they read
stories. What they found provided an intriguing insight into the way our brain constructs our sense of self. Changes
in characters' locations (e.g., "went out of the house into the street") were associated with increased activity in
regions of the temporal lobes involved in spatial orientation and perception, while changes in the objects that a character
interacted with (e.g., "picked up a pencil") produced a similar increase in a region of the frontal lobes known to be
important for controlling grasping motions. Most important, however, changes in a character's goal elicited increased
activation in areas of the prefrontal cortex, damage to which results in impaired knowledge of the order and structure
of planned, intentional action.
Imagining, it would seem, really does make it so. Whenever we read a story, our level of engagement is such that
we "mentally simulate each new situation encountered in a narrative," according to one of the researchers, Nicole Speer.
Our brains then interweave these newly encountered situations with knowledge and experience gleaned from our own lives
to create an organic mosaic of dynamic mental syntheses.
Reading a book carves brand-new neural pathways into the ancient cortical bedrock of our brains. It transforms the
way we see the world—makes us, as Nicholas Carr puts it in his recent essay, "The Dreams of Readers," "more alert to
the inner lives of others." We become vampires without being bitten—in other words, more empathic. Books make us see
in a way that casual immersion in the Internet, and the quicksilver virtual world it offers, doesn't.
Which is worrisome, to say the least, given the current slump in reading habits. According to a 2011 survey conducted
by the British charity the National Literacy Trust, one in three children between the ages of 11 and 16 do not own a
book, compared with one in 10 in 2005. That equates, in today's England, to a total of around four million. Almost a
fifth of the 18,000 children polled said they had never received a book as a present. And 12 percent said they had never
been to a bookshop.
But if society really is becoming more psychopathic, it's not all doom and gloom. In the right context,
certain psychopathic characteristics can actually be very constructive. A neurosurgeon I spoke with (who rated high
on the psychopathic spectrum) described the mind-set he enters before taking on a difficult operation as "an intoxication
that sharpens rather than dulls the senses." In fact, in any kind of crisis, the most effective individuals are often
those who stay calm—who are able to respond to the exigencies of the moment while at the same time maintaining the requisite
degree of detachment. Individuals like my old friend Andy McNab.
McNab was arguably the most famous British soldier to have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces until Prince Harry
hung up his polo mallet at Eton. During the first Gulf War, Andy commanded Bravo Two Zero, an eight-man Special Forces
patrol that was assigned the task of gathering intelligence on underground communication links between Baghdad and northwest
Iraq, and tracking and destroying Scud missile launchers along the Iraqi main supply route in the area.
But soon the boys had other fish to fry. A couple of days after insertion, the patrol was compromised by a goatherd.
And, in time-honored fashion, they beat it: 185 miles, across the desert, toward the Syrian border.
Only one of them made it. Three were killed, and the other four, including Andy, were picked up at various points
along the way by the Iraqis. Suffice it to say that none of their captors were ever going to have their own talk shows
... or make their mark in the annals of cosmetic surgery. It's generally accepted that there are better ways of putting
a person at ease than by stubbing your cigarette out on his neck. And better ways of breaking and remodeling their jawline
than with the sun-baked butt of an AK-47. Thanks to more-advanced techniques back home in Britain, Andy's mouth now
packs more porcelain than all the bathrooms in Buckingham Palace put together. He should know. In 1991 he went there
to collect the Distinguished Service Medal from the queen.
Such mental toughness isn't the only characteristic that Special Forces soldiers have in common with psychopaths.
There's also fearlessness. A couple of years ago, on a beautiful spring morning 12,000 feet above Sydney's Bondi Beach,
I performed my first free-fall sky dive. The night before, somewhat the worse for wear in one of the city's waterfront
bars, I texted Andy for some last-minute advice.
"Keep your eyes open. And your arse shut," came the reply.
I did. Just. But performing the same feat at night, in the theater of war, over a raging ocean from twice the altitude
and carrying 200 pounds of equipment, is a completely different ballgame. And if that's not enough, "We used to have
a laugh," Andy recalls. "Mess about. You know, we'd throw the equipment out ahead of us and see if we could catch up
with it. Or on the way down, we'd grab each other from behind in a bear hug and play chicken—see who'd be the first
to peel off and pull the cord. It was all good fun."
Er, right. If you say so, Andy. But what wasn't much fun was the killing. I ask Andy whether he ever felt any regret
over anything he'd done. Over the lives he'd taken on his numerous secret missions around the world.
"No," he replies matter-of-factly, his arctic-blue eyes showing not the slightest trace of emotion. "You seriously
don't think twice about it. When you're in a hostile situation, the primary objective is to pull the trigger before
the other guy pulls the trigger. And when you pull it, you move on. Simple as that. Why stand there, dwelling on what
you've done? Go down that route and chances are the last thing that goes through your head will be a bullet from an
M16.
"The regiment's motto is 'Who Dares Wins.' But sometimes it can be shortened to 'F--- It.' "
Andy's on a weeklong spree in the desert, roaring around Nevada on a Harley V-Rod Muscle, when I call.
"No helmets!" he booms.
"Hey, Andy," I say. "You up for a little challenge when you get back?"
"Course!" he yells. "What is it?"
"How about you and me go head-to-head in a test of cool in the lab? And I come out on top?"
Manic laughter.
"Love it," he says. "You're on! How the hell do you think you're going to pull that off?"
I hang up. What I'm planning is a psychopath makeover, to find out firsthand, for better and for worse, what it's
like to see the world through devil-may-care eyes. And there's nothing like a bit of competition.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (or TMS) was developed by Anthony Barker and his colleagues at the
University of Sheffield in 1985. The inaugural application of TMS by Barker and his team comprised an elementary demonstration
of the conduction of nerve impulses from the motor cortex to the spinal cord by stimulating simple muscle contractions.
Nowadays it's a different story—and TMS has widespread practical uses, in both diagnostic and therapeutic capacities,
across a variety of neurological and psychiatric conditions, from depression and migraine to strokes and Parkinson's
disease.
The basic premise of TMS is that the brain operates using electrical signals, and that, as with any such system,
it's possible to modify the way it works by altering its electrical environment. Standard equipment consists of a powerful
electromagnet, placed on the scalp, that generates steady magnetic-field pulses at specific frequencies, and a plastic-enclosed
coil to focus those magnetic pulses down through the surface of the skull onto discrete brain regions, thus stimulating
the underlying cortex.
Now, one of the things that we know about psychopaths is that the light switches of their brains aren't wired up
in quite the same way as the rest of ours are—and that one area particularly affected is the amygdala, a peanut-size
structure located right at the center of the circuit board. The amygdala is the brain's emotion-control tower. It polices
our emotional airspace and is responsible for the way we feel about things. But in psychopaths, a section of this airspace,
the part that corresponds to fear, is empty.
In the light-switch analogy, TMS may be thought of as a dimmer switch. As we process information, our brains generate
small electrical signals. These signals not only pass through our nerves to work our muscles but also meander deep within
our brains as ephemeral electrical data shoals, creating our thoughts, memories, and feelings. TMS can alter the strength
of those signals. By passing an electromagnetic current through precisely targeted areas of the cortex, we can turn
the signals either up or down.
Turn down the signals to the amygdala, of course, and you're well on the way to giving someone a psychopath makeover.
Indeed, Liane Young and her team in Boston have since kicked things up a notch and demonstrated that applying TMS to
the right temporoparietal junction—a neural ZIP code within that neighborhood—has significant effects not just on lying
ability but also on moral-reasoning ability: in particular, ascribing intentionality to others' actions.
Andy rocks up to the Centre for Brain Science at the University of Essex one bitterly cold December morning, and
we're met at the door by the man who, for the next couple of hours or so, is going to be our tormentor. Nick Cooper,
one of the world's leading exponents of TMS, ushers us into the lab, shows us over to two high-backed leather chairs,
and straps us in. He wires us up to heart-rate monitors, EEG recording equipment, and galvanic-skin-response (GSR) measures,
which assess stress levels as a function of electrodermal activity. By the time he's finished, the pair of us look like
we're trapped inside a giant telecom junction box. The gel for the electrodes feels cold against my scalp.
Directly in front of us, about 10 feet away on the wall, is a large video screen. Nick flips a switch, which makes
it crackle to life. Then he goes into white-coat mode. Ambient music wafts around the room. A silky, twilit lake ripples
in front of our eyes.
"Bloody hell," says Andy. "It's like an ad for incontinence pads!"
"OK," says Nick. "Listen up. Right now, on the screen in front of you, you can see a tranquil, restful scene, which
is presently being accompanied by quiet, relaxing music. This is to establish baseline physiological readings from which
we can measure subsequent arousal levels.
"But at an undisclosed moment sometime within the next 60 seconds, the image you see at the present time will change,
and images of a different nature will appear on the screen. These images will be violent. And nauseating. And of a graphic
and disturbing nature.
"As you view these images, changes in your heart rate, skin conductance, and EEG activity will be monitored and compared
with the resting levels that are currently being recorded. Any questions?"
Andy and I shake our heads.
"Happy?"
We nod.
"OK," says Nick. "Let's get the show on the road."
He disappears behind us, leaving Andy and me merrily soaking up the incontinence ad. Results reveal later that, at
this point, as we wait for something to happen, our physiological output readings are actually pretty similar. Our pulse
rates are significantly higher than our normal resting levels, in anticipation of what's to come.
But with the change of scene, an override switch flips somewhere in Andy's brain. And the ice-cold Special Forces
soldier suddenly swings into action. As vivid, florid images of dismemberment, mutilation, torture, and execution flash
up on the screen in front of us (so vivid, in fact, that Andy later confesses to actually being able to "smell" the
blood: a "kind of sickly-sweet smell that you never, ever forget"), accompanied not by the ambient spa music of before
but by blaring sirens and hissing white noise, his physiological readings start slipping into reverse. His pulse rate
begins to slow. His GSR begins to drop, his EEG to quickly and dramatically attenuate. In fact, by the time the show
is over, all three of Andy's physiological output measures are pooling below his baseline.
Nick has seen nothing like it. "It's almost as if he was gearing himself up for the challenge," he says. "And then,
when the challenge eventually presented itself, his brain suddenly responded by injecting liquid nitrogen into his veins.
Suddenly implemented a blanket neural cull of all surplus feral emotion. Suddenly locked down into a hypnotically deep
code red of extreme and ruthless focus."
He shakes his head, nonplused. "If I hadn't recorded those readings myself, I'm not sure I would have believed them,"
he continues. "OK, I've never tested Special Forces before. And maybe you'd expect a slight attenuation in response.
But this guy was in total and utter control of the situation. So tuned in, it looked like he'd completely tuned out."
My physiological output readings, in contrast, went through the roof. Exactly like Andy's, they were well above baseline
as I'd waited for the carnage to commence. But that's where the similarity ended. Rather than go down in the heat of
battle, in the midst of the blood and guts, mine had appreciated exponentially.
"At least it shows that the equipment is working properly," comments Nick. "And that you're a normal human being."
We look across at Andy, who's chatting up a bunch of Nick's Ph.D. students over by a bank of monitors. God knows
what they make of him. They've just analyzed his data, and the electrode gel has done such a number on his hair that
he looks like Don King in a wind tunnel.
All done, Andy is off to a luxury hotel in the country, where I'll be joining him later for a debrief. But that's
only after I've run the gantlet again, in Phase II of the experiment. In which, with the aid of a psychopath makeover,
I'll have another go at the experiment, only this time with a completely different head on—thanks to a dose of TMS.
"The effects of the treatment should wear off within half an hour," Nick says, steering me over to a
specially calibrated dentist's chair, complete with headrest, chin rest, and face straps. "Think of TMS as an electromagnetic
comb, and brain cells—neurons—as hairs. All TMS does is comb those hairs in a particular direction, creating a temporary
neural hairstyle. Which, like any new hairstyle, if you don't maintain it, quickly goes back to normal of its own accord."
Nick sits me down in the sinister-looking chair and pats me, a little too reassuringly for my liking, on the shoulder.
By the time he's finished strapping and bolting me in, I look like Hannibal Lecter at LensCrafters. He positions the
TMS coils, which resemble the handle part of a giant pair of scissors, over the middle section of my skull, and turns
on the machine.
Instantly it feels as if there's a geeky homunculus miner buried deep inside my head, tapping away with a rock hammer.
"That's the electromagnetic induction passing down your trigeminal nerve," Nick explains. "It's one of the nerves
responsible for sensation in the face, and for certain motor functions like biting, chewing, and swallowing. You can
probably feel it going through your back teeth, right?"
I nod.
"What I'm actually trying to find," he continues, "is the specific part of your motor cortex responsible for the
movement of the little finger of your right hand. Once we've pinpointed that, I can then use it as a kind of base camp,
if you like, from which to plot the coordinates of the brain regions we're really interested in: your amygdala and your
moral-reasoning area."
"Well, you'd better get on with it," I mutter. "Because much more of this, and I'm going to end up strangling you."
Nick smiles. "Blimey," he says. "It must be working already."
Sure enough, after about 20 seconds, I feel an involuntary twitch exactly where Nick has predicted. Weak, at first.
Then gradually getting stronger. Pretty soon my right pinkie is really ripping it up. It's not the most comfortable
feeling in the world—sitting strapped in a chair, in a dimly lit chamber, knowing that you don't have any control over
the actions your body is performing. It's creepy. Demeaning. Disorienting ... and kind of puts a downer on the whole
free-will thing. My only hope is that Nick isn't in the mood to start clowning around. With the piece of gear he's waving
about, he could have me doing cartwheels round the lab.
"OK," he says. "We now know the location of the areas we need to target. So let's get started."
My little finger stops moving as he repositions his spooky neurological wand in the force field above my head. It's
then just a matter of sitting there for a while as my dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and right temporoparietal junction
get an electromagnetic comb-over.
TMS can't penetrate far enough into the brain to reach the emotion and moral-reasoning precincts directly. But by
damping down or turning up the regions of the cerebral cortex that have links with such areas, it can simulate the effects
of deeper, more incursive influence.
It isn't long before I start to notice a fuzzier, more pervasive, more existential difference. Before the experiment,
I'd been curious about the time scale: how long it would take me to begin to feel the rush. Now I had the answer: about
10 to 15 minutes. The same amount of time, I guess, that it would take most people to get a buzz out of a beer or a
glass of wine.
The effects aren't entirely dissimilar. An easy, airy confidence. A transcendental loosening of inhibition. The inchoate
stirrings of a subjective moral swagger: the encroaching, and somehow strangely spiritual, realization that hell, who
gives a s---, anyway?
There is, however, one notable exception. One glaring, unmistakable difference between this and the effects of alcohol.
That's the lack of attendant sluggishness. The enhancement of attentional acuity and sharpness. An insuperable feeling
of heightened, polished awareness. Sure, my conscience certainly feels like it's on ice, and my anxieties drowned with
a half-dozen shots of transcranial magnetic Jack Daniel's. But, at the same time, my whole way of being feels as if
it's been sumptuously spring-cleaned with light. My soul, or whatever you want to call it, immersed in a spiritual dishwasher.
So this, I think to myself, is how it feels to be a psychopath. To cruise through life knowing that no matter what
you say or do, guilt, remorse, shame, pity, fear—all those familiar, everyday warning signals that might normally light
up on your psychological dashboard—no longer trouble you.
I suddenly get a flash of insight. We talk about gender. We talk about class. We talk about color. And intelligence.
And creed. But the most fundamental difference between one individual and another must surely be that of the presence,
or absence, of conscience. Conscience is what hurts when everything else feels good. But what if it's as tough as old
boots? What if one's conscience has an infinite, unlimited pain threshold and doesn't bat an eye when others are screaming
in agony?
Back in the chair, wired up to the counters and bleepers, I sit through the horror show again: the images modified,
so as to avoid habituation. This time, however, it's a different story. "I know the guy before me found these images
nauseating," I hear myself saying. "But actually, to be honest, this time round I'm finding it hard to suppress a smile."
The lines and squiggles corroborate my confession. Whereas previously, such was my level of arousal that it was pretty
much a minor miracle that the state-of-the-art EEG printer hadn't blown up and burst into flames, my brain activity
after the psychopath makeover is significantly reduced. Perhaps not quite as genteelly undulating as Andy's. But getting
there, certainly. It's a similar story when it comes to heart rate and skin conductance. In fact, in the case of the
latter, I actually eclipse Andy's reading.
"Does that mean it's official?" I ask Nick, as we scrutinize the figures. "Can I legitimately claim to be cooler
than Andy McNab?"
He shrugs. "I suppose," he says. "For now, anyway. But you'd better make the most of it while you can. You've got
a quarter of an hour. Max."
I shake my head. Already I sense the magic wearing off. The electromagnetic sorcery starting to wane. I feel, for
instance, considerably more married than I did a bit earlier—and considerably less inclined to go up to Nick's research
assistant and ask her out for a drink. Instead I go with Nick—to the student bar—and bury my previous best on the Gran
Turismo car-racing video game. I floor it all the way round. But so what—it's only a game, isn't it?
"I wouldn't want to be with you in a real car at the moment," says Nick. "You're definitely still a bit ballsy."
I feel great. Not quite as good as before, perhaps, when we were in the lab. Not quite as ... I don't know ... impregnable.
But up there, for sure. Life seems full of possibility, my psychological horizons much broader. Why shouldn't I piss
off to Glasgow this weekend for my buddy's stag party, instead of dragging myself over to Dublin to help my wife put
her mother in a nursing home? I mean, what's the worst that can happen? This time next year, this time next week even,
it would all be forgotten. Who Dares Wins, right?
I take a couple of quid from the table next to ours—left as a tip, but who's going to know?—and try my luck on another
couple of machines. I get to $100,000 on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" but crash and burn because I refuse to go 50-50.
Soon things start to change. Gran Turismo the second time round is a disappointment. I'm suddenly more cautious, and
finish way down the field. Not only that, I notice a security camera in the corner and think about the tip I've just
pocketed. To be on the safe side, I decide to pay it back.
I smile and swig my beer. Psychopaths. They never stick around for long. As soon as the party's over, they're moving
on to the next one, with scant regard for the future and even less for the past. And this psychopath—the one, I guess,
that was me for 20 minutes—was no exception. He'd had his fun. And got a free drink out of it. But now that the experiment
was history, he was suddenly on his way, hitting the road and heading out of town. Hopefully quite some distance away.
I certainly didn't want him showing up in the hotel bar later, where I was meeting Andy. They'd either get on great.
Or wouldn't get on at all.
To be honest, I didn't know which would be scarier.
Kevin Dutton is a research psychologist at the University of Cambridge. This essay is excerpted from The Wisdom of
Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, his new book from Scientific American
/ Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population -- 300,000 people in Canada -- are psychopaths.
He calls them "subclinical" psychopaths. They're the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds,
find and use vulnerable women for sex and money (and inevitably abandon them). They're the con men like Christophe Rocancourt,
and they're the stockbrokers and promoters who caused Forbes magazine to call the Vancouver Stock Exchange (now part
of the Canadian Venture Exchange) the scam capital of the world. (Hare has said that if he couldn't study psychopaths
in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.)
... They're your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they're natural predators.
If you didn't have a conscience, you'd be one too.
Psychopaths love chaos and hate rules, so they're comfortable in the fast-moving modern corporation. Dr. Paul Babiak,
an industrial-organizational psychologist based near New York City, is in the process of writing a book with Bob Hare
called When Psychopaths Go to Work: Cons, Bullies and the Puppetmaster. The subtitle refers to the three broad
classes of psychopaths Babiak has encountered in the workplace.
"The con man works one-on-one," says Babiak. "They'll go after a woman, marry her, take her money, then move on and
marry someone else. The puppet master would manipulate somebody to get at someone else. This type is more powerful because
they're hidden." Babiak says psychopaths have three motivations: thrill-seeking, the pathological desire to win, and
the inclination to hurt people. "They'll jump on any opportunity that allows them to do those things," he says. "If
something better comes along, they'll drop you and move on."
How can you tell if your boss is a psychopath? It's not easy, says Babiak. "They have traits similar to ideal leaders.
You would expect an ideal leader to be narcissistic, self-centred, dominant, very assertive, maybe to the point of being
aggressive. Those things can easily be mistaken for the aggression and bullying that a psychopath would demonstrate.
The ability to get people to follow you is a leadership trait, but being charismatic to the point of manipulating people
is a psychopathic trait. They can sometimes be confused."
Once inside a company, psychopaths can be hard to excise. Babiak tells of a salesperson and psychopath -- call him
John -- who was performing badly but not suffering for it. John was managing his boss -- flattering him, taking him
out for drinks, flying to his side when he was in trouble. In return, his boss covered for him by hiding John's poor
performance. The arrangement lasted until John's boss was moved. When his replacement called John to task for his abysmal
sales numbers, John was a step ahead.
He'd already gone to the company president with a set of facts he used to argue that his new boss, and not he, should
be fired. But he made a crucial mistake. "It was actually stolen data," Babiak says. "The only way [John] could have
obtained it would be for him to have gone into a file into which no one was supposed to go. That seemed to be enough,
and he was fired rather than the boss. Even so, in the end, he walked out with a company car, a bag of money, and a
good reference."
"A lot of white-collar criminals are psychopaths," says Bob Hare. "But they flourish because the characteristics
that define the disorder are actually valued. When they get caught, what happens? A slap on the wrist, a six-month ban
from trading, and don't give us the $100 million back. I've always looked at white-collar crime as being as bad or worse
than some of the physically violent crimes that are committed."
The best way to protect the workplace is not to hire psychopaths in the first place. That means training interviewers
so they're less likely to be manipulated and conned. It means checking resumщs for lies and distortions, and it means
following up references.
Paul Babiak says he's "not comfortable" with one researcher's estimate that one in ten executives is a psychopath,
but he has noticed that they are attracted to positions of power. When he describes employees such as John to other
executives, they know exactly whom he's talking about. "I was talking to a group of human-resources executives yesterday,"
says Babiak, "and every one of them said, you know, I think I've got somebody like that."
By now, you're probably thinking the same thing. The number of psychopaths in society is about the same as the number
of schizophrenics, but unlike schizophrenics, psychopaths aren't loners. That means most of us have met or will meet
one. Hare gets dozens of letters and e-mail messages every month from people who say they recognize someone they know
while reading Without Conscience. They go on to describe a brother, a sister, a husband. " 'Please help my seventeen-year-old
son. . . .' " Hare reads aloud from one such missive. "It's a heart-rending letter, but what can I do? I'm not a clinician.
I have hundreds of these things, and some of them are thirty or forty pages long."
Hare's book opened my eyes, too. Reading it, I realized that I might have known a psychopath, Jonathan, at the computer
company where I worked in London, England, over twenty years ago. He was charming and confident,
and from the moment he arrived he was on excellent terms with the executive inner circle. Jonathan had
big plans and promised me that I was a big part of them. One night when I was alone in the office, Jonathan appeared,
accompanied by what anyone should have recognized as two prostitutes. "These are two high-ranking staff from the Ministry
of Defence," he said without missing a beat. "We're going over the details of a contract, which I'm afraid is classified
top secret. You'll have to leave the building." His voice and eyes were absolutely persuasive and I complied. A few
weeks later Jonathan was arrested. He had embezzled tens of thousands of pounds from the small firm, used the company
as a mailing address for a marijuana importing business he was running on the side, and robbed the apartment of the
company's owner, who was letting him stay there temporarily.
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by a constellation of interpersonal, affective and behavioural
characteristics (Hare, 1998). The early literature suggested that
it was a uni-dimensional phenomenon, but subsequent studies revealed that measures of psychopathy had at least a two-factor
structure, comprising an interpersonal/affective element (factor 1) and a social deviance component (factor 2). More
recently, a three-factor structure has been proposed (Cooke & Michie,
2001), which includes:
an arrogant, deceitful interpersonal style, involving dishonesty, manipulation, grandiosity and glibness;
defective emotional experience, involving lack of remorse, poor empathy, shallow emotions and a lack of
responsibility for one’s own actions;
behavioural manifestations of impulsiveness, irresponsibility and sensation-seeking.
Conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are often seen as developmental disorders that
span the life course and the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. There are, however, significant differences between
them and their associated correlates. Whereas conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder primarily focus on
behavioural problems, psychopathy, as described by Hare (1991),
emphasises deficits in affective and interpersonal functioning. Psychopathy is seen as a higher-order construct, which
can now be reliably be assessed in adults using the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL–R;
Hare, 1991). A score of >30 on the PCL–R indicates prototypical
psychopathy.
The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy in the general population is 1%, rising to between 15% and 25% in incarcerated
groups. The notion that individuals identified as PCL–R ‘psychopaths’ are different from people with a diagnosis of
antisocial personality disorder comes from research showing that there are high rates (50–80%) of antisocial personality
disorder in prison populations, but only 20% of these meet Hare’s criteria for psychopathy (Hare,
1998).
Item content of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (afterForthet
al,2004)
Impression management Conforms with notions of social desirability, presents him- or herself in a good
light, is superficially charming
Grandiose sense of self-worth Is dominating, opinionated, has an inflated view of own ability
Stimulation-seeking Needs novelty, excitement, is prone to boredom and risk-taking behaviours
Pathological lying Exhibits pervasive lying, lies readily, easily and obviously
Manipulation for personal gain Is deceitful, manipulates, engages in dishonest or fraudulent schemes
that can result in criminal activity
Lack of remorse Has no guilt, lacks concern about the impact of his or her actions on others; justifies
and rationalise their abuse of others
Shallow affect Has only superficial bonds with others, feigns emotion
Callous or lacking empathy Has a profound lack of empathy, views others as objects, has no appreciation
of the needs or feelings of others
Parasitic orientation Exploits others, lives at the expense of friends and family, gets others to do
his or her schoolwork using threats
Poor anger control Is hotheaded, easily offended and reacts aggressively, is easily provoked to violence
Impersonal sexual behaviour Has multiple casual sexual encounters, indiscriminate sexual relationships,
uses coercion and threats
Early behavioural problems Lying, thieving, fire-setting before 10 years of age
Lacks goals Has no interest or understanding of the need for education, lives day-to-day, has unrealistic
aspirations for the future
Impulsivity Acts out frequently, quits school, leaves home on a whim, acts on the spur of the moment,
never considers the consequences of impulsive acts
Irresponsibility Habitually fails to honour obligations or debts, shows reckless behaviour in a variety
of settings, including school and home
Failure to accept responsibility Blames other for his or her problems, claims that he or she was ‘set
up’, is unable and unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their actions
Unstable interpersonal relationships Has turbulent extrafamilial relationships, lacks commitment and
loyalty
Serious criminal behaviour Has multiple charges of convictions for criminal activity
Serious violations of conditional release Has two or more escapes from security or breaches of probation
Criminal versatility Engages in at least six different categories of offending behaviour
... ... ...
At present, there is no general agreement on whether or not psychopathy exists in childhood and adolescence. A consensus
is likely to be reached only when we have longitudinal studies demonstrating the stability of psychopathic traits over
the lifespan and evidence that the same aetiological factors contribute to this disorder at all ages. As there is significant
overlap between the behavioural aspects of juvenile psychopathy and ADHD and between the callous-unemotional dimension
of psychopathy and autistic-spectrum disorders, future work needs to disentangle these constructs from a phenomenological
and aetiological perspective.
As yet, there are few treatment outcome studies in juveniles with psychopathic traits, although the limited data
suggest that these traits might be a moderator of outcome. Most clinicians view youth psychopathy as a potentially treatable
disorder, and there is some evidence that identification of psychopathic traits in young people has a number of benefits,
which include:
identifying high-risk offenders;
reducing misclassifications that have negative ramifications for children and adolescents;
improving and optimising treatment planning for young people with psychopathic traits, who may require more
intensive and risk-focused therapeutic approaches.
Psychopathy in children - a condition more common than people think.
Signs of impending disaster can be seen as early as age three. They can be expressed in a child's inability to empathize
when others are suffering, in the absence of remorse for bad behavior, but the most disturbing - is cruelty to children
or other animals.
Many parents who have witnessed abuse by their children, feel the chill in his stomach. Most moms and dads want their
offspring were attentive and kind, if not all the time, at least most of it. Typically, a flash of rage subsides child
in five minutes, and a furious tiger turns into a nice home a kitten. But some parents treacherous cold in the stomach
and does not leave a proverbial five minutes. He only transformed into a gnawing, nagging belief that all is not as
it should.
The problem may manifest itself in the child's inability to experience empathy when others suffer. This may be a
lack of remorse for bad behavior. The most alarming cases - a manifestation of cruelty to children or other animals.
One day the parents are asking: Can my child - a psychopath? The answer, experts say, may well be positive. Today,
most psychologists believed that the first signs of psychopathy can be seen when the child reaches the age of three.
Stephen Scott, professor of child health and behavior based on the Institute of Psychiatry, London Maudsley Hospital,
is engaged in identifying problems in children aged from three to eight years. Among those who demonstrate antisocial
behavior, it easily identifies children who have supplemented it heartlessness and unemotionally, characteristic of
adult psychopaths, and directs them to the specialists of "Gentle Care With Love" (Tender Loving Care, TLC).
Experts TLC every year deal with hundreds of children referred to them on the advice of psychiatrists, pediatricians,
social workers, teachers and psychologists. Parents can bring children themselves, without the direction of a specialist
if they have concerns about his mental state.
To put a child into the category "callous and detached" may be difficult, admits Scott. As a rule, children have
time to be excluded from school for the disgusting behavior before on clarifying the causes of professionals start working.
Most children are diagnosed after a series of quality tests, extensive interviews, interviews with the little bully
and his parents and his class teacher.
At the same time, the professor, many children, and adults can naturally not be too emotional, without being psychotic.
For example, autistics can not put yourself in another's place and corny do not understand when a person is bad, or
hurt, while the true psychopath aware of this report, but it just do not care about the feelings of others.
"One little girl put her five-year window of the cat, darling of the family, and then threw her down on the concrete
- just for fun. This is a very bad sign. This behavior is characteristic of psychopaths than simple fighting with brothers
and sisters - said Professor Paul Frick, dealing with the problems of child psychopathology over the past two decades.
- Most of the time we do not pay attention to how children behave at home with each other. However, children that we
do not just bad behavior in the family - they intentionally harm people by behaving coldly and calculatingly in any
situation. "
A psychopath is not necessarily always be dispassionate - and they can see the flash of anger, but their anger is different
from the momentary rage inherent in the other children. One little boy, whom experts involved in the project TLC, pushed
his mother down the stairs and said that he had de love it when people hurt. "We just do not want to stigmatize these
children psychopaths, but we would say that this child has certain features which, if not elimination of their work
will lead to psychopathy," - said Scott.
My parents bought another difficult child stained glass for 300 pounds. A few days later a 12-year-old boy, looking
at my father and mother, went to the window - and turned it into a stained glass pieces. The anger has nothing to do
with it: the action was clearly intentional, explains the professor. "The brain is a site that will handle the fear
- the amygdala. For some children it does not work at full strength, with the resul that they like to take risks. They
like to have fun, but the punishment they forget" - says Scott.
Here are the main symptoms, noting that parents should be wary. A child with psychopathic traits:
- Constantly fighting with others, corrupts or steals their belongings;
- Violates parental prohibitions - running away from home or returning late at night;
- Does not feel guilt for his obviously bad things;
- Demonstrates a disregard for the feelings of others: for example, pushes another child with a swing, not paying attention
to his cries;
- Do not worry about their performance;
- It seems a cold, showing emotion only when he wants to scare anybody, or to subordinate his own will;
- Blames others for his mistakes, not taking responsibility for themselves;
- Afraid of nothing and consciously takes a risk;
- Does not respond to the threat of punishment;
- Above all, puts his own pleasure, even if it brings pain to others (for example, steals his favorite thing).
Risk children usually do not look into the eyes of parents, but if you force them to do so, they better understand
the feelings of mothers and fathers. How to achieve this understanding, experts explain TLC: "Ask your child to look
you in the eye and say:" I am very glad that you did it "when a child commits a good deed, to connect the emotional
component of the interaction and strengthen the activities of the cerebellar tonsils."
Professor Scott suggests need to give children an idea of the possible consequences of their actions. Kids are smart
enough to realize it. You can, for example, say: "If you did not listen, then go to my room," the main thing - be sure
to bring your promise into action. Talking it should be very calm tone. No one says that it is simple: children psychopaths
need more praise and rewards for good behavior.
In addition, parents should try to win the respect of their offspring, and for this they need to be consistent and
not let the words in the wind. For example, once a child starts behaving very badly, you need to explain to him that
his behavior will inevitably be followed by your response, and turn away. Once the child calms down, you can continue
the dialogue with the place where you left off, while making sure that your tone was calm. Reward your child's attention
for his good behavior - and be patient.
Is your boss manipulative? Intimidating? Totally lacking in remorse? Yet superficially charming? Then you could
be working with a workplace psychopath. The latest figures suggest one in ten managers are psychopaths, and this week
Catalyst goes deep inside their minds - what makes them tick, how do you spot them; and how do you avoid being crushed
by them. We’ll also run a handy test – tune in to find out if your boss is an office psychopath.
TRANSCRIPT
Narration: It begins as a phone call - and then a meeting - usually late at night.
A corporation has a problem and they need Dr John Clarke's help. They need a psychopath- buster.
Dr John Clarke: The common misconception with psychopaths is that they're all violent extreme kind of criminals.
The majority of them are living and working around us in jobs psychologically destroying the people that they work with.
Narration: There's a growing realisation psychopaths are thriving in today's workplace. According to the textbooks,
every large company has them.
Jonica Newby, reporter: This is where I work. It's the ABC building in Sydney. Now the figures are that 0.5% of women are psychopaths, and 2% are men. So that means there are up to 25 corporate
psychopaths somewhere up there.
Narration: But who are they? What makes them tick? And how do you avoid being the next victim of the workplace
psychopath.
Psychologist John Clarke started out profiling criminal psychopaths, but four years ago, he began to realise there
was a much bigger problem.
Dr John Clarke: I was giving a lecture on criminal psychopaths and someone came down after that lecture and
said that their boss had the same characteristics as what I'd just described for a criminal one.
Narration: "Annette" knows just what he's talking about. Like most victims we contacted, she would only tell
her story anonymously.
She was a confident, career minded public servant when she first met her new boss.
Annette: I got a shock when he took me into his office and shut the door - he just exploded. It was sort of
like well what do we want you for.
And then when he let me out again it was all smiles.
Dr John Clarke: There are 20 characteristics to define a psychopath. Really the
fundamental factor is an absolute lack of remorse or guilt for their behaviour, pathological lying, manipulative, callous,
egotistical, very kind of self centred individual, glib and superficial charm
Narration: The workplace psychopath's textbook strategies feature in a new David Williamson play, Operator.
Psychopath: Francine. They tell me that you're the person who really runs things here, so I thought I'd
better say hello as quickly as possible.
Francine: Now you're just trying to flatter me.
Psychopath: Not at all. Three different people have told me that with your capabilities you could step straight
out of a support role into top management.
David Williamson: They are so devious. They're so good at saying things you want to hear to your face at the
same time they're knifing you in the back.
Psychopath: Could you do me a big favour?
Francine: What?
Psychopath: Write me an email that sort of recounts what happened here today.
Francine: I don't like putting things in writing.
Psychopath: I won't ever show it to anyone without getting your permission first. I know I shouldn't be showing
it to you ...
Dr John Clarke: They steal other people's work. They spread rumours about people,
character assassination.A range of different strategies they will use to
move up through the company.
David Williamson: They are worrying. I mean, if you strike one you may not realise it for quite a while until
they do some devious act that stabs you in the back and can quite psychologically crush you.
Narration: Annette's boss was typical - charming his superiors and acolytes, while
isolating and undermining his victims.
Annette: I wasn't allowed to have a phone when I was working, you know, my phone calls were monitored just
this constant wearing down and harassment and you know, it was just awful.
Narration: By the time she complained, she'd been so discredited behind her back, no one would support her.
Annette: They didn't believe me. They're going, "He's such a funny guy, he's so nice"
In the end I had to go in and, and see him. And I was just crying my eyes out and I was just tears running down my
face. And he walked me out through the chairs, through the desks, out through the long way through the office in case
anyone had missed the spectacle of me just breaking down. I was devastated. I was just broken.
Narration: But how can someone act in such a seemingly inhuman way?
The truth is, psychopaths are fundamentally different to the rest of us. Research is showing they're deficient in
a crucial skill that evolved to ensure we don't abandon our friends and family - empathy.
Dr John Clarke: Empathy really is the ability to feel what another person is feeling. It's very very important
in terms of survival of the human species because if nobody really cared or understood what other people were feeling
it would just cause breakdown of society.
Narration: Empathy is not just an abstract idea ... it's something you can measure physiologically.
Jonica Newby, reporter: Well, I'm about to be tested for one of the key characteristics of a psychopath.
Dr John Clarke: Now I'm just going to show you some pictures. Sit back, relax, and we'll see what happens.
Narration: As I watch the pictures, probes are detecting whether I release minute traces of sweat - whether
I have an emotional response - empathy.
Psychopaths generally don't react.
Jonica Newby, reporter: So how'd I go?
Dr John Clarke: Very well. What we can see as we scroll through is for the non-emotional pictures there is
no response. And when we get to here with the pictures of people crying you can see an involuntary physical emotional
response.
Jonica Newby, reporter: So I'm not a psychopath.
Dr John Clarke: Definitely not.
Narration: Psychopaths generally don't react.
This lack of emotional response extends deep into the brain.
When most of us see another persons distress, our emotional centre, the limbic system, is aroused. We feel a little
of what others are feeling.
But a 2001 US study revealed the psychopath has very little limbic system response to emotional information.
John Clarke: And that's what allows them to manipulate and control other people because they're able to do
that on a very rational logical level but at the same time they don't feel the emotion or empathy for the other person.
Narration: No one knows how much of this deficit is genetic, and how much shaped by childhood.
But by the time they are adults, psychopaths aren't simply uncaring. They are physically incapable of feeling other
people's pain.
Annette: My hair was falling out, you know, and I uh.. you know, I had diarrhoea, I couldn't sleep, my life
got that awful and black it seemed a better option to just be dead and stop it.
Man: Someone I like and respect a lot almost died last night.
Psychopath: Let's get real here. Melissa was reckless, incompetent and stuffed up in a big way. And when you
stuff up big time you get depressed.
Man: She nearly died.
Psychopath: She's a loser. Who f...... cares?
Narration: But without a brain scan, how do we spot a psychopath before its too late? One answer seems to
be; look up.
John Clarke suspects corporations today aren't just failing to screen for psychopaths, they're unwittingly selecting
them.
Dr John Clarke: You see this advertisement here. "An ability to do whatever it takes to meet a deadline".
So that would appeal to a psychopath because they are prepared to do whatever it takes whatever the cost. If we look
at this one - "The opportunities are endless you just need to know how to win it" - well they know how to win everything
pretty much.
David Williamson: They present very confidently. They are full of self-esteem. They have no doubts; no hesitations
and so interviewing panels often find them very attractive.
That's what many corporations see as being a good executive.
Narration: But some corporations are now realising they have a problem. That's why they call secretly on criminal
profiler, John Clarke.
Dr John Clarke: The companies don't like to admit they have a psychopath and so the first meeting, it's often
on a Friday night or late at night after the employees have gone home.
Narration: Issues range from fraud, to broken promises, to losing staff.
Executive: I just can't seem to keep staff and it's all coming from his section.
Dr John Clarke: Which is costing you money.
Executive: Exactly.
Dr John Clarke: The first thing I do is really get an assessment from the people working below, at the same
level and above the individual. And so if there are huge discrepancies in opinion that's reason to start delving deeper.
Narration: Dr Clarke then administers a standard psychopath assessment. Remember those questions you answered
earlier? They're a modified, cut down version.
Here are the final two:
Is your boss opportunistic, ruthless, hating to lose and playing to win?
Does your boss consider people they've outsmarted as dumb or stupid?
If your boss scored 5 out of 6 or more, you could be working with a workplace psychopath.
Now for the bad news.
Dr John Clarke: It's almost impossible to rehabilitate the psychopath. In fact, there are studies in the United
States, which suggest that rehabilitation in fact makes them worse because it teaches them new social skills they can
use to manipulate the people around them more effectively.
Narration: Once identified, there are strategies to manage the psychopath or move them on.
But what if you're the victim, and the corporation backs your boss?
Stay too long, and you risk a severe psychological breakdown. That's what happened to Annette.
Annette: I loved my job but in the end I, I fell apart. I was just so, so broken and you know, I just walked
out and there was no coming back.
I'm unemployable now, you know. I just, I can't take another knock like that,
Dr John Clarke: When I tell them that one of the options is to leave the company there's shock, and then they
go on to how unfair it is but then there's devastation when they do realise that that might be the most appropriate
option to take because the situation is not going to change.
Narration: Far from getting their comeuppance, in these days of short term goals and high staff turnover,
psychopaths often rise to the top.
In making this story, we spoke to many victims, none who could be identified for fear of defamation or worse - all
devastated - all with a similar message.
Annette: I think you should run, you should run. There are some bosses out there that are deadly.
Dr John Clarke: I want people to be aware that they're not going crazy. It's the workplace psychopath that's
the problem, not them.
David Williamson: That's not to say that every manager is like that. But it's that one out of ten that has
the potential to really wreck a company, wreck the coherence of a company and wreck lives.
I could recount acts by a psychopathic boss that are so disgusting, so unethical, that its hard to comprehend. However,
I chose to write the following:
For those who, like myself, do not want to quit a good job -
I say study your psychopath boss and evolve beyond him / her.
Do not let them defeat you. They are in fact quite predictable, once you learn the
fundamentally different way they view you and the world around them. Do not battle with them, instead
get to know their modus operandi to the point where nothing surprises you. Strengthen
yourself through being informed and prepared. Try to learn from the situation and build your character.
After all, they have no right to project their psychopathy on to others. Its his/her personal issue, they have no
right to mess with your career or the way you provide for yourself and your family! Fight back, calmly and intelligently.
Yes they are self serving, destructive parasites. However, their presence is an inescapable reality of the corporate
world - there is strong argument that corporations themselves are psychopathic entities - if you want to play the
corporate game, better get prepared for the corporate psychopath.
Plenty of resources out there, such as Dr. John Clarke and Dr. Robert Hare. Also
texts on 'power' (i.e., in this context, manipulating without empathy) like Machiavelli's The Prince can be quite
insightful.
Happy Ending
My husband was at the mercy of a psychopath for 6 months. After almost bringing the Company undone the psychopath
was sacked by the Directors. It required reports by all the employees, backed up by visitors to the company from
outside. Every incident had been diarized for 6 months. These included swearing, shouting, threatening, harassing
(sexual and verbal), lying, discriminating, bullying, taking credit for others good work, demeaning behavior towards
staff and customers alike, etc.
Of course there were incidents of charming behavior mixed in, especially with the "right" people. Thankfully,
a full report to Directors and HR brought swift action - within 7 days he was GONE!
He had actually received counseling previously so I guess the company did not want any law suits!
Vinny
Your husband was very lucky. Only 6 months of hell. Sounds like a dumb psychopath, that one, giving away his true
colours to too many people. Thats unusual. The one I"m dealing with is much smarter than that. He only shows his
true colours to individuals, and he"s conned and cowed the manager so as to make sure any complaints get back to
him..
Which makes it payback time against anyone who dares to do it. Everyone is miserable, yet no one, apart
from me, has had the guts to complain, which I've done 3 times, to no avail. But it has had the effect, for now,
of making him think twice about retaliating, knowing as he does, that I wont take it quietly. I"m waiting for his
next move, which I KNOW he will be scheeming up right now. I dont know how this will end, but I am using my instinct,
which I think is the only way to fight these types.'All Ive got left to loose, is a job which he has made miserable
anyway.
Vinny
I only wish ABC or any channel could come out with more programmes on this subject. It"s such a widespread and serious
problem. It would be a sure fire ratings winner if they advertised it properly in advance as they always do with
special interest programmes. And with the amount of people being so badly affected by psychopaths these days, there
would surely be enough material to make a 3 or 4 part series out of it. That Catalyst programme was years ago. MORE
educational programmes about psychopaths are desperately needed.
Moderator: Thanks for your comment. Dr Jonica
Newby recently revisted the subject of psychopaths and her latest story focused on children who are at risk of developing
psychopathic traits in adulthood. It's called Psychopath in the Family and you can find it here -
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3453149.htm
BLONDIE
I am currently in the clutches of a Corporate Psychopath. The rest of the team I work with also suffer the manipulation.
There seems to be no way out. The EEO officer in the company is the person causing the problem. This person has
caused me so much grief that I am at my wits end. My problem is that I am very competent in my work a represent
a huge threat to this person. I don't know what to do. I would give my eye teeth for a new job.
JKOC
have had a similar experience, this resulted in me losing my job. I was unaware of what was happening - too naive
- until it was too late. Returned from leave - 7 weeks - this was all the time that they needed to cement themselves.
I have been completely devastated.
All I can say to you is run - as fast as you can before they destroy your career. Good luck.
Vinny
Would I be correct in saying that the difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is that the psychopath is
more ambitious, constantly striving to push their luck further and further, whereas the sociopath is happy to attain
a certain level in life, and ruthlessly cling onto that??? Ive known both types over the years, and despite these
differences in their aims, they still otherwise possessed all the other normal characteristics of a standard psychopath.
Vinny
Why is it, in these modern times, our societies are STILL so blissfully ignorant of psycopaths? My supervisor is
a copybook psycopath, all my workmates know fully well what he"s like, yet when I mention to them that he is a workplace
psycopath, they give me a funny look. Theyve never heard of the term. This ignorance is why workplace psycopaths
thrive. People still think psycopaths are just horror movie characters. Is it possible to get the reality of workplace
psycopaths into mainstream media? Apart from the odd documentry. These monsters cause far more damage to our workplaces
and societies than any other type of villain. The best defence against them, is to EXPOSE THEM, their characteristics,
tendencies, aims, games, tell tale signs, and most importantly, the fact that their condition is untreatable and
incureable. They have infiltrated into every part of society and I believe they are much more common than any stats
suggest, and that they are negatively influencing our culture far more than we realize. How can a collective monster
get this big, in our midst, and still hardly anyone has heard of it?
daughter
One of my parents was a psychopath, I believe. They are both dead now. The one who caused the trouble declared they
intended to cause chaos. Is is worse than a boss. It is very difficult to leave a parent. I found the only way to
survive was to leave. Now I am dealing with the result of the back stabbing, lies and deception. I am now reading
Jon Ronson's 'the psychopath test' to try to understand the situation I was/am in. I am not surprised that others
do not believe me. Psychopaths are very charming, convicing, very very clever.
I am in the process of being an executor of this parent's will. I am continually confronted with the lies and misinformation
left to be dealt with.
Icemaiden
Mod, bearing in mind that those who have successfully dealt with a psychopath have longer stories than the failures
do - would you please stop cutting off the best bits when the stories get 'too long'.
There aren't that many successful
techniques. It would be nice if the few there are, were preserved for Posterity!
B
They are out there. I manage a small team in the public service. A female corporate psychopath was seconded into
my workgroup for a period of nine months. She heaped praise on me, offered me gifts (I rejected), and spoke of previous
excellent work achievements. My subordinates lapped up the praise, accepted the gifts and listened to every word.
I uncovered a minor fraud, when I challenged her all hell broke loose. There was much cunning, bizarre behavior
was directed to me, she made sure there were no witnesses. Incidents included sloshing a bucket of vomit at me,
death threats, suicide threats, and totally alienating me to the group I managed.
I was stunned when she denied these actions. A harassment claim was lodged against me painting her as the victim.
Outright lies, twisted truths, union involvement. My HR and leadership team went missing. She spread rumors I threatened
to kill her via email. I was investigated, but I also finally had proof (no death threat).
I demanded action should be taken, nothing was. I then threatened to quit, still no action. She has since been
granted compo on stress leave (which is why I don't think work persued her). As it turns out, this is a pattern
of behaviour.
I will resign within the next few weeks on principle, I am absolutely disgusted with my department (11 years
of service). She had my team in her clutches, they did not have the courage to stand up and say this behavoiur is
wrong - cowards. She backstabbed these people and I stood up for them.
Despite this being extremely unpleasant, I come out much the wiser. They don't play by the same rules. For all
those dealing with this, my advice is put yourself first. This may mean quitting.
They're everywhere...
xxx
Both my partner and myself have been bullied and harassed in the workplace by psychopaths.
Survival techniques include keeping a written record on them and any witnesses,
try not to let them get you alone (difficult when they call you in an office and shut the door I know).
Try and find someone who is prepared to back you up if meetings are required. Although our situations were different
the resultant bullying and harassment symptoms was the same. We both fought off our opponents for years. My Partner
has had some success due in part to having "evidence". I literally mean photos, recording etc. (psychos beware people
are arming themselves). I however worked for lawyers as a secretary...ever tried arguing with one???
HR were useless as it was the psycopathic partners of the firm who paid them.
After 3 miserable years I left, I was very close to snapping and was driving my family and friends mad with my complaints.
I abruptly left the firm one day. I'd had enough. Best decision I ever made and should have done it way sooner.
These people are difficult to avoid they're everywhere, so in your new job, flush them out immediately. Make sure
you let these people know (sometimes a look and body language speaks volumes) that they are NOT your friend, they'll
get the message pretty quick.
Also as a backup build up an "emergency" bank account. If do need
to leave a job to keep your sanity it helps a lot that you know you have enough money to survive on for a good couple
of months before getting another job. Its difficult and risky but if you're sanity, health and family life is at
risk of crumbling it's worth it. Surround yourself with supporters it helps pick you up where the psycho's knocked
you down. Work to live NOT live to work. There are plenty of good employers
out there don't put up with a bad one. As a footnote I've subsequently learned that my "replacement" left after
3 months...(now that's justice!)
Distracted
I have just left a sociopath after an 11 year relationship. I think i have aged about 10 years over the past 3 years
we were living together. I've lost money, was physically and emotionally abused.
He has had at least 8 jobs over the past 11 years and recently got a new well paying job in the area of human
services. In all his positions he has had problems with people under him and above him.
He has conducted various campaigns and threats against management and his team members in all his positions. Has
been pulled up for bullying on countless occasions and sent to counselling etc. He's always fighting with HR, IT,
everyone is incompetent etc. He recently forced one woman to resign because he told me she was fat and unattractive.
He is now starting another campaign against another woman there.
He works in an area that helps single mothers with there issues and also in an area that employs a lot females,
who tend to be very empathetic, ie social workers, educators etc It just amazes me that someone like that can do
so well, change jobs constantly but doesn't appear to have to face any consequences. No one seems to question him
or look at his past.
He just makes himself so unpleasant to people that in the end, they are glad to see the back of him and wouldn't
complain about him because he would retaliate.
I think they should test these people before employing them for this disorder and there should be some kind of
register like child abusers. They are dangerous.
Dr Suss
Dear distracted i completely relate to how you feel regarding your ex sociopath, i was working for and dating one
at the exact same time. Mine also switched jobs and caused great disputes with former employers and employee's.
It annoys me greatly how they move up in the world by stepping on others and how some
employers just don't do background checks anymore. If his current employers had done a back ground
check he would not be working for them now and making life miserable for those who have to work under him.
Jerome
It is extremely difficult to overcome the abuse of a manager who exhibit psychopath traits.. I had my dealings with
one of these persons, and the methods and strategies they used on the victim are deadly...
Rob
Wow I went through workplace harassment for 5 years in one of Australia's largest communications company's. My manager
and supervisor fit this bill to the T. When my harassment started (primarily driven by their bonuses, success and
power) I elected to fight this unjust and unwarranted treatment.
When I officially complained to HR and as far
as the then CEO, I quickly found out how HR and management can collude to protect themselves
and most importantly their reputations. Hence began my 'character assassination'. My union wasn't
prepared to assist or defend me, Work Choices was not interested, Comcare didn't even investigate. In the end I
felt I had no choice but to leave the company after 19 years of service. As I was going crazy and was always on
the defensive and not allowed representation.
It's ironic that it has taken this documentary, Corporate Psychopath, for the first time that I feel somewhat
vindicated as to this type of acknowledged behavior in the workplace and the big and powerful corporate world.
Thanks ABC/Catalyst
Silas Kerrchner
I saw everything in your dramatization that exists (and is encouragred) for new Managers in the Canadian Gov't Civil
Service.
The Canadian Gov't Civil Service has a new MOTTO "you don't know to need the subject matter to manage"
Unfortunately, after working for many years in XXXX, a new top manager came in from a welfare agency. He had
no experience in law enforcement [moderator edited]. He immediatly started to hire his lovers and promote them to
middle management; while eliminating the cadre of employees who knew more than him.
Torture Torture Torture
A loss to Canadian Security
Friends in high places assure me the ratio is actually closer to 1 in 2. Bosses with split personality are 2
in 1.
DINESH:
If you add the article below from Dr Burch from Auckland, you will see how much value and merit there is your article.
You are essentially right about workplace bullying where extreme individuals with a high repeat rate at some one
in ten are really "psychopaths". Well done for bringing this article to my attention too. In the world of law and
recruitment and self care, these articles are invaluable.
Dr Burch said his research shows psychopaths created
"toxic workplaces" with bullying, manipulation, sexual harassment, lying and fiddling the books.
"We all come across people at work from time to time who are difficult, devious and troublesome," Dr Burch said.
Dr Burch said most people with personalities generally fitting under the 'psychopathic umbrella' do not commit
obvious crime and are not imprisoned or hospitalized, but function within normal society - often with apparent success
and the respect of their bosses.
However, workplace psychopaths are generally highly destructive and manipulative
individuals with "dark sides" who have no remorse for their actions, which can result in a range of serious issues
for organizations and the people within them, Dr Burch says.
And they're making you ill, he said.
Victims suffered insomnia, depression, were more prone to heart attacks could even be traumatised to the point
of suicide.
"Unrelenting stress from a toxic workplace causes anxiety and clinical depression
in 30 percent of female and 20 percent of male targets, according to international research. The risk of cardiovascular
disease is 30 percent more likely when workers believe their workplace is unjust...."
Anonymous
I worked for 18 months under two workplace psychopaths in cahoots who not only played mind games and intimidated
employees in their professional life, but monitored their phone calls and movements, spread rumours through networking
with all around them, and made them feel stalked for years. I still live with the fear of being circled by them.
I have learned to look for smiles in the workplace with a real glint in the eye, rather than a vacant glazed stare,
and I have remain vigilant that friends stay loyal to me rather than passing on phrases and messages designed to
take me back to those times where the abuse was closer. The only place for those without empathy is in IT where
they can relate to like minded machines.
Mia
That sounds like a cult more than anything. What field of work is
this in? I think a study of different fields would show some correlation with a specific field vs. another. Some
psychopaths are drawn to certain paths or callings too. It would reveal a lot if someone did a study on this.
perplexed
I've worked for the state 4 years. 3 months ago I "RIFd" into another department. 15 years of experience in the
field. Excited that my experience fit the position perfectly, and eager to contribute to this newly created program.
Red flags began 1st day. Fear based management of staff, micromanagement, 2 years ago every counselor was bullied
into early retirement or transfer, staff are reprimanded for being too cheerful, certain staff are forbidden to
speak to particular staff, manager told me which staff had personal life problems, who had accommodations and who
was behind in their work (non of my business and perhaps a nudge to mob targets). At 90 day review he told lie about
what I said in meeting and used this as reason he believes I may not be able to deal with "gray areas" so extended
probation to 6 months. Friendships among staff are forbidden. I've never dealt with a manager like this and am bewildered!
Based on my research, it seems wise to go back onto "RIF" list & get out of there. This is the perfect position
for me and love the work so it's a hard decision.
Mia
If you can get ten employees to write to your HR rep or Equal Oppotunity Employer Union or whatever about this
manager you can start a real case. I never heard of violating "Freedom of Speech". I guessed that you are a counselor.
Are you working with prisoners? Gray areas? hmmm. Maybe the reason is because some of the counselors deal with highly
talkable subjects like ..."my clients are murderers" or something that is violating privacy laws. Pretend to be
the manager in your mind for a half an hour and meditate on why this manager came up with these rules. If you put
yourself in the shoes of this manager you might find that they are just as stressed as you are!
Makkin
Seems to be alot of disgruntled employees now blaming their problems on the scary boogeyman of the office, that
it was never their fault the official office psychopath made them fail.
Psychopaths make up roughly 4% of the population not all your bosses can be psychopaths, get over it, maybe you
just werent as good at your job as you thought?
Laura
Wow! So what do you do when the psychopath is your ex partner dragging you through the legal system and being a
step ahead of you at every turn. Where do we find information to guide us through the legal system. All the behavior
of the workplace psychopath is that of the one who lurks at home, same behavior different context. Where to find
help, how do we get them diagnosed before a homicide is committed??? Please help!
Moderator: If anyone needs support
please call lifeline in Australia
Phone: 13 11 14
Another spousal
The courts hate liars so tell the truth and listen to everthing they say and where they are going with there 'storys'
but make sure you are in court or have witness's when you point out there lie .
kathy
I stumbled across this whilst trying to research what to do about an employer who has been subtly harassing me and
undermining me. Everything in this program indicated that my boss is also a pyscopath. She plays games, on one hand
nice and then stands over meyelling and pointing her finger at me. Some of her behaviour has now been witnessed
by other people in our organisation. I have tried to complain and have been sent to mediation with her. I had a
session just today that left me more stressed and confused. without breaching the mediation session too much, all
i can say is that she lied and made false accusations about me. What now???
it sucks
Hi I am going through the same at the present time, only thing is i have refused to do the mediation as i know how
charming this can be. I put in the response to mediation after they suggested it the following:
1) this persons behaviou is not something that i feel i should be addressing, it would only benefit that person
immensely.
2 I do not think that the share holders etc would not condone this type of behaviour.
3 I feel and believe that this kind of behaviour is morally and ethically wrong.
i'm still awaiting a response as yet I have not heard anything.
th manager has alos been moving my things like car keys, turning pc off, isolating me out of meetings.
I put the
grievance in on the 17th March, wasn't heard until the 11th april and it's now may???? I have had to take time off
to deal with it, not looking forward to going back in.
Mia
I watched a co worker who is very outspoken deal with my boss. He said an onslaught of hateful things that were
vented up from months of being a victim.
She calmly addressed him with counterclaims on everything and made us wonder if she even knows herself?
Then she sent him to Anger management the next week and informed the higher ups he has an anger management problem.
We laughed at the absurdity of it!
jmac
May I point out bullies do not pick victims they pick targets. There
is a difference.
Hanh Stewart
I understand what you going through I am the victim of work place psychopath, as I am right now just engaging legal
challenge with such a good company who just employed me and this sociopath ambushed me force me to write my resignation
so he could easerly win the court case.
Dr John Clark is right very hard to deal with Sociopath as they are very maniplative,snicky and clever with evil
mind . Yes they do destroy my employment opportunity with such good company. Dr John Clark is right again stay away
from sociopath to save your self this why I let the lawyer to deal with them so I can move on and go to an other
company hopefully not run into another Sociopath
Mia
I think the nice part is to keep you thinking she is still not a threat. I worked with someone like this too. Maybe
she feels guilty so she acts nice. I had one change her shirt in front of me once...when we were alone and talk
about how she had a stain on it and that was the reason why. She still talked about work as she fixed her shirt
and stuff. I laughed because a minute before she was acting all power trippy and then acted like a human being who
has problems too. I learned not to trust them anyways. Keep your distance and never talk about your troubles or
whatever. It will be used against you, unlike what she does with you. The difference is that you do not use it against
her but you could,
jmac
my boss had lied again and again to discredit me with her boss....they appear to have a symbiotic relationship.
As a new mature aged graduate the treatment I have been dealt has been disgusting. If it wasn't for the good supportive
relationships I have made in the workplace, and support of wonderful friends I think I would have had a breakdown.
I identified early that these people are lacking empathy. As a social worker I feel empathy is inherent in my make-up
so to be controlled and manipulated has been a shock and very distressing. Their subversive techniques are soul
destroying.
Kate
I have just returned from the first session with the psychologist and discovered it was not me as incompetent, and
the rest. I work for a CP and am now on one hand feeling a bit better knowing it is not me but horrified that there
is almost no hope for me to stay in the job I love. I am having a week off work to overcome the breakdown but cannot
see what I will do next. My Doctor says to fight will just kill me an further cement her position. Devastated .
Craig Barry
I Take it that CP is for child protection? I have worked for the last 24yrs in many positions working with young
people,I tell you now, "get out" don't let them burn you out at such a young age!!!
The Department will distroy you!!!
Mia
I dont know if you should quit. Sometimes there are situations that you cannot leave
or quit. Try the military for one.;). We get so used to Pyschopaths in positions of authority that we are practically
immune to yelling, humiliation, and being called incompetant or slow or whatever.We deal with
jobs that no one explains how to do and all sorts of micromanagements and finally we learn to use our heads, filter
out the stupidity and meanness and say "what are the results of this being done" That is all we want at the end
of the day. Results.
marc
a few P's joining the conversation here no surprise-important info for them on how to do it better!
Being the daughter of one and sadly not realising untill too late the mother of a few I have an inkling that I may
have a co dependence issue.Hospitalisation alerted me to the prevalence of the cost to society of those victims
whoavoid ending their lives-not many!Also interesting was the prevalence of certain professions being over represented
on the wards suffering from'Burnout'a euphemism for cosequences of a P. the prevalence of Asperger's Syndrome(on
the Autistic Spectrum)in my family makes me wonder about the same disconnect to emotions that the P has. Another
prog.ABC aired recently "I Psychopath" was absolutely brilliant more exposure is required
Jen
Definately exclude - there is no positive outcome from employing staff at any level with these characteristics -
in fact the opposite is sure to be the result - gradual destruction of individuals and any possibility of team work.
The planned, cold and calculated destruction of individuals is the purpose of these
people.
Jazz
No, their purpose is survival and personal gain.This means that unlike people with ordinary social/ emotional responses they will trample
people without conscience to attain their goals. And if you're standing in the way of their objectives,
they will set out to destroy you. In this competitive, capitalist society they thrive because they embody the attributes
of success. This is an interesting psychological analysis of them:
http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Articles/Psychopath.htm
Just say grow
The question is however is cp a fundamental part of leadership or would companies that recognize this personality
type and seek to exlude it foster a healthier more productive culture of engagement?
Jen
Definately exclude as they can only add individual and team misery, whilst going undetected for some years. The
worst are the professionally trained in some way, such as psychologists, who can use thier profession to enhance
their skill at destruction and to hide that from detection.
C
Dear Dr John,
I have been struggling now for 2 yrs with the workplace psychopath. I work in a clinic for youth and adolescents
with mental health issues. I thought only caring and concerned people wanted to work for young people!!!!!! My mistake.
My concern is for family and patients... but now has moved on to me!!! I am so drained by this experience. The only
sustaining factor are the few staff who are aware of this person. Some management are also aware but it is hard
to get hard data on them. They are very good at covering their tracks- but the poor kids and their families get
their heads done in quite frequently. I am also due for a big payrise. It seems pretty empty though and comes at
a big cost of surviving this psychopath. I feel myself losing any empathy I had and am now thoroughly suspicious,
paranoid, and unfeeling. I feel like I have developed a 'lizard brain' as soldiers term it and I am turning into
the bitter, narcissistic, manipulative creep I despise!!!!! Help!
Mia
Here is what I would do. Stay there and get the big pay raise. Then as you establish yourself in the new position
I would look for another job to match the NEW PAY level. New skills acquired make for a better resume and if your
skills are in demand then you will find a great job with the new salary and since you worked at this job you need
to become more "desensitized" anyway to the patients and families around you. Alot of these adolescents will drain
you and then later not be so messed up...but you will still carry their troubles with you not even knowing that
ALL TEENS are usually troubled with mental health issues. Later it somehow gets better but you only see their present
states and not their futures.
Whistling Woman
I am a veteran, having worked for three women in the past twenty years or so. All had personality problems of some
kind.
The first had what I now think was narcissistic personality disorder; the second became disturbed and abusive
in the final year before she left very suddenly; the third and most recent is retiring TODAY! She has been lazy,
self-serving, self-absorbed, gutless, and undermining. She has launched an investigation into my "misconduct", leaving
it up in the air, because she knew she was retiring (but has not even had the courtesy to tell me or the other managers
who report to her!). It is probable that she has been driven to this by her own (male) manager, and is either too
gutless or uncaring or unprofessional or all three, to refuse to participate in it. I am past caring. It seems they
are everywhere - and it's power that enables their true colours to come out. One thing I disagree with Dr Clarke's
diagnosis of CP's is the charm - none of them was/is particularly charming, or even interesting as people (which
makes it all the more annoying that one has to spend so much time obsessing about them). I think the best thing
is just to carry a mental impermeable membrane around oneself, and just write them off one's mental horizon - act
as if they are NOT THERE, or when communicating with them is unavoidable, maintain an aura of freezing politeness.
Mia
I worked with one too and I was in the military myself. I noticed that she pointedly did things to exclude me. Like
first it started with meetings...saying "this is not concerning your work so you don't have to stop working" but
I would overhear her and sometimes she mentioned me like.."what is she working on today?" which made me feel paranoid.
Then it went to social exclusion like " we are having a ceremony for blah blah but you need to watch this office
while we go". I suspected that she blamed me for mistakes and it went on like this. One day I was driving in my
car and suddenly I thought of her and said to myself..."no don't pay her no mind" and wondered "does she think of
me?" And thats when I realized not to let her "rent head space". Later I read that they often think about their
subjects and I thought no to feeding into her weird head gaming ways.
movingon
I have worked for a female boss for over 2 years and have been subject to micromanagement, subtle and untraceable
bullying for the entire time. Her method of insidious grinding victimisation has reduced
my confidence and at times my ability. further advancement in the institution is impossible as she has friends and
networks with stealth. I am constantly told of her supportive relationship with her boss which leaves
me isolated and unable to go to work without feel sick. Is this a P? Either way I want to move on and have applied
for several senior admin positions. Is it a war zone in every workplace?
Chris F
Yes, she is a P. Only after getting terminated from my previous job of nine years in May 2010 (now collecting unemployment),
did I labeled the problem. It was systemic and so subtle that I didn't even realize that they were trying to abuse
me until after I was fired. You described the exact same situation I was once in. The
corporation has developed a psychopathic environment overall. Most of my coworkers feel micromanaged, a severe lack
of respect from management, cannot talk to anyone in management about how they feel, they dread taking any time
off for being sick as psychopathic bosses feel no empathy for the sick or weak, they absolutely dread waking up
and going to work and often feel like not going in. Every mistake they make is treated as the same
whether it's big or small. After reading about psychopaths in the workplace, I've come to the conclusion that we
have at least 4 psychopaths in the office, two of which are female. It's not a war zone in every workplace, but
now that you are aware of psychopaths in the workplace, just being able to identify them will allow you not suffer
future abuse.
Been there managing one
I managed a potential one of these CPs. John Clarke does educate on them at Sydney Uni Continuing education. I learnt
a lot and helped the victims of the CP and in the end we all left the company when national managmnt would not take
action even though they knew the problem for 7 years prior to any of us joining. Its just a continual turnover in
that area of the company. Do the course if you need to learn about them.
On the edge
Amazing stuff... explains a lot really. I thought these people were borderline personality disorder types but there
was too many of them I thought, surely. Yes, CP seems the logical answer now I have watched the episode and read
some of the posts. Try working in a uniformed service with these people. It is an absolute nightmare. They herd
and gather like shopping trolleys and are just about as unmanageable always power broking and putting some skew
on everything. They delight in destabilising the senior officers group and the organisation being dysfunctional
because of it.
What do you suppose the collective noun for a group of CP's would be? A 'Toxic' of CP's.
Mia
Lol. I am in the uniformed forces myself and I have seen so much that I think I am desensitized much like a PTSD
disorder. I have seen crazy levels of mental abuse and "supposed tactics of execution" to other members in the group.
There is only one thing that is good about watching so much mental war...you finally say "hey I have seen that movie
too and you buy a bag of popcorn". It doesn't faze you as much, you start to study to
gain rank, and you tail race them and leave them collecting dust. Senior Officers are needed in the
military and logic and sanity are well represented with this group so don't give up. Leading by example makes us
look to you for hope and knowing that there is some people that still make sense in this world.
Anon
Thank you so much ABC. Someone I'm very close to has a Mother who is exactly like this. Although it's been years
since he lived at home. I am helping him deal with her cold, malipulating, sexually abusive, controlling ways. He
finally told me what life had REALLY been like for him growing up. She should be behind bars. But I'm protecting
him. He doesn't want to be publicly humiliated. I thought at some point he might want to confront her about all
that she put him through, but after reading this I think perhaps that would be more of a hinderance. And somehow
she'd convince him it was all his fault.
Thank you for letting us know that "psychopath" isn't just a bad word.
But that it's very real.
And someone said somethign earlyer. Some people have mental illnessess and are kind, morally empathetic human beings.
A psychopath is not the same thing.
stronger now
This article was very helpful to me, especially the description of a CP as someone who can be charming and glib
and doesn't really care about their impact on others. I kept trying to understand how someone could lie, manipulate
and disparage others even when they were continually caught out - essentially he didnt care less. The CP in my workplace
was not my boss - I was his. Over time all of the other staff in the team complained to me about him and when I
challenged his poor treatment of others he accused me of bullying - relentlessly, right through the organisation
- without anything to substantiate his claims. But he didnt care that it was obvious that he was lying - but throw
enough mud and it will stick. The rest of the team were disgusted with his behaviour so then he accused me of turning
everyone against him. I experienced the self-doubt, sleepless nights, tears and pain of trying to understand why
someone would behave like this. It drove me crazy because there was no reason to treat me like this, it wasnt logical
or reasonable. Turns out he had done it over and over again in previous jobs and kept moving on. I cant bear to
think what it must be like to have a CP as a boss - its bad enough to have one work for you! My advice - never agree
to meet without witnesses, document as much as possible, research the CPs history - what a relief to discover that
there is a pattern and that its not just you! - above all dont expect rationality or
decency from a CP!
sethpin
I think the CP is generally a narcissist, and that's a mental illness with no cure.
I was made redundant recently by the Managing Director of a small company who is a CP... the usual characteristics
- lack of empathy, empty promises, lying low after suffering a "narcissistic injury"
in the form of a detailed email from me copy to one or two other people.
Fortunately for me I worked alone 700km away and hardly ever saw him, but I feel for HO staff!
There is a general lack of knowledge in the workplace about narcissistic personality
disorder but when you go to a job interview, you accept the risk that you end up working for a CP (or in your case,
employing one). Hopefully the CP can be taught to be ruled by fear of the consequences of mistreating
others. Good luck with finding a replacement employee!
mazinoz
I have just managed to get a former employee out of my life, and believe me it wasn't easy. He continued to bully
me via technology [put rootkits and self written scripts on all my computers and network in linux, very hard to
get rid of]. I still can't come to grips with how evil these people can be. I simply couldn't imagine it! Way out
of anything I could comprehend, especially since he did the 'poor me' routine on me, and I went out of my way to
help him - taking to doctors, accommodation etc only to have him really use and abuse me. I think this is why I
didn't really heave and fight to get him out of my life sooner, though I did do more than you would normally have
to do to achieve this. Even when I got him off the premises he refused to hand over his keys. In the end I had to
resort to conning him to do this, something I normally wouldn't do but couldn't afford to change the locks. I have
since instituted further security measures as well, though I already had deadlocks,window locks etc.
I still have
not recovered emotionally from it all, don't hardly know where to start. After I had done all this what horrified
me was he ACTUALLY SAID something along the lines of "you're rich, therefore I have the right to take you for everything
you've got, it came so easily to you, unlike poor me, therefore I'm entitled. Even though he knew I had chronic
pain due to two genetically based health issues and had had to deal with this from my early twenties. Add to this
that people like me with hypermobility syndrome and either fibromyalgia or caeliac disease are at least 90% likely
to be misdiagnosed by GP's. Also no emotional or practical support from a family with alcoholism issues and mental
illness. Life was such a peach for me. (sarcasm)
I think the things to look out for with psychopaths are what I call the three E's.
Egotistical, Ego-centrism, Entitled. The entitled thing can be used both ways the 'poor me' or the
'I'm educated therefore I am superior and entitled' sometimes at the same time! I honestly don't think at this stage
I will ever get over this, or how. This is the second time I've encountered this in the workplace, coincidentally
both male electrical engineers who were subordinate to me. In the other case the backstabbing was relentless and
it appeared that the CEO was supporting him till he said something that made me realise that he had been lied to
by the psychopath. There were things the psychopath had said that on the surface didn't make sense eg: protests
about moving to a work location closer to his home address. I mulled things over and eventually realised why and
what he was doing. He told the CEO he was going to 'keep in touch' with people at the old work site, for half a
day, whereas in reality it dawned on me that he may have been using this as an excuse to do contract work nearby
in the CBD. I checked things out but I was literally shaking with fear when I revealed this to two supportive board
members and
Moderator: Please keep posts to a reasonable length - under 200 words.
ghostwriter
there seems 2b alot of fingerpointing going on...shame shame shame ...it seems to me
that people need to either develop thicker skin or stay out of the corporate sector.. as far as personal
life watch the signs they can't change their stripes for long.. never in 1 place for too long if they are real CP..
and not just a sociopath in CP clothing ...lol...& to the person who asked do they know what they are..... yeah
they know..
SeenIt
Yep. Ghostwriter and people with this type of attitude are always with us in history. They are low down in the evolutionary
chain and will learn through 'what you sow you reap' type of justice. Unfortunately for all of us we need to be
patient with these poor souls.
ghostwriter
Seenit.. the moral of the story is if they r a true psychopath they will NOT LEARN because they DON'T CARE....
they aren't happy with themselves for the actions they commit they do it for the reaction
to test peoples limits. human nature facinates them as they are not capable of feeling empathy or
sympathy & many other "natural" emotions so they feed on u to get a reaction in order to witness these feelings
even though the connection to the feelings themselves does not exist..
by giving them a reaction u r playing right into their hands.. they will WEED themselves out in time if u give
them NO REACTION... they will get bored with u & move on to other people or places... but if u give them what they
want BE PREPARED to be in it for the long hall...my experience is great in this matter.. FYI if not sure your dealing
with a TRUE PSYCO ASK THEM...
in my experience they will tell u point blank just to issue & study your reaction..most are VERY PROUD of what
they are.. who knows u might even get a 1st real answer.
Been there managing one
Until you come across one you have no idea the damage they cause. They can be long term employees in my case the
national management were too frightened to do anything as this one talks legal everytime a problem arises as they
have a family of legal eagles giving advice and a sibling that won a fortune from a company that took action. So
it ain't so black and white my friend in some cases.
trude
My partner is in the middle of recovering from a CP. He nearly lost his life as he considered suicide at his lowest.
Our whole family has been severely affected by the employers lack of care for my partner, even when they knew there
was a big problem and just ignored it for 3 yrs. My partner did finally seek workers compensation and after an initial
denial of the claim, we are seeing a solicitor who is confident of our case. Interestingly there is no compensation
or domestic assistance for me after I have had to give up my job to look after my seriously ill partner and 3 kids.
mazinoz
I believe you and hope you can try to put this behind you. Try to imagine a better life. This may be what gets you
through. Definitely get counselling. These people are as toxic as hell. I am going to try to find out as much as
possible about a company, its values and its IR record before I work for them. Unfortunately I have seen the proverbial
'bad apple' cause so much dysfunction and stress to other employees.
Survivor
I survived an experience that had all the trademarks of the C.P.
I'm happy to say I managed to get through without
being personally defeated. Would I like to go through it again? No, once is enough. I have my scars but I've proven
to myself my character was stronger and I see no further learning from going through it again. It was a first for
me. I was generally trusting of people in the workplace, but I guess now am a tad more careful from coming out the
other end of the C.P. experience.
What I find interesting about the C.P. phenomenon are the quantity of weak minded
individuals that often assist the C.P. in their endeavours, conquests and laugh at their sick and sad jokes.
All in the hope to be permitted entry into the C.P.'s inner circle.
This is why I said it was a test of character. I felt the whole experience put my character to the test and I
survived. Unfortunately, a number of people of whom I knew from previous workplaces
flaked under the pressure and assisted the C.P. Some might say they were just trying to survive as
best they could. Maybe, but I couldn't live with myself to do it - just not how I was raised. In fact I feel those
people are the saddest casualties, not those who are the completely broken by the C.P. or who end up leaving.
I'm thinking of getting some t-shirts printed up with the slogan: "I survived a C.P."
Otherwise what else could be done? A website to name and shame - effectively a black list? Unfortunately no,
as it would probably constitute libel. N.B. "Probably" because if it can be proven true I suspect it isn libellous.
Good luck people and remember to hold your own moral strength of character to help survive the ordeal.
sethpin
@ survivor - The people who flaked under pressure from the CP - that's called "narcissistic supply". There's one
such sycophant I'm considering removing from my list of verbal referees...
AV
My female boss is a psychopath and hormonally unstable which is always even more of a treat 2 weeks of the month.
I had been at the company for 10 years in a regional branch and was transferred to Head Office of which she was
the new manager of a new department.
The first DAY i could feel my confidence coming undone. Nothing I did was
right. At first I took everything on board, working long hours but she kept changing the goal posts ensuring that
people could hear her disapproval of my work. She would put a big display of tearing up work that I had spent hours
on saying words like, 'huge disappointment' and my favourite 'some pple do not deserve a job'. By the 4th day I
was spending my lunch breaks wiping tears in the toilets.
It was like being constantly slapped in the face. I was shocked! - words, cruel, behind doors locked and humiliation
in front of my co-workers. It was more distressing then giving birth! I found her to be unnaturally aggressive and
overly charming at the same time with a blank coldness, completely unmoved.
She'd humiliate me and then ask if Id like some lunch and to come outside for a break where she would talk about
her family and laugh and joke with other people in the building. I was like .. what the?? Skitzo much??
Luckily she had not factored in my personal relationships at Head Office with HER superiors. (10 years of fun
Christmas Parties and Corporate Box shenanigans share a bonding of its own) These things
I used to my advantage.
I had a not so secret meeting with her manager of whom she'd shared an adjoining window. He had heard the things
being said behind closed doors and had not said anything because he wanted to see how she would play out (being
an unknown factor).
He apologised that he had not intervened earlier but he thought I was handling her well. Well, after a few minutes
of explosive expletives I warned him to put a stop to her behaviour or I would go higher. He spoke to her. Monday
morning she was nice as pie but I KNEW i was in for a fight. Whenever her insidious attempts at work and character
assassination wore me down Id make a point of sitting in her managers office sharing chocolate and laughing and
smiling at her through the adjoining window.
I have become very good at detailed file notes of conversations and phone calls always cc-ing correspondance
and emails openly providing evidence to the team and sometimes BCC'ing contacts in Head Office of my work leaving
minimal room for error and if so, showing the criticisms to be hardly worthy of attention. It was exhausting but
exhilarating at the same time. I wasnt going to let her beat me and I still havent.
She backed off about 6 months later because she was exposed but I have continued to detail my work. She also
realized early on she needed my support in getting the department off the ground due to my inside knowledge of the
industry, our clients and my professionalism.
Victim
Thanks for the words of encouragement, Happy Now! Yes I have the Union supporting me and keeping me informed of
my rights along with my work colleague who got sack on the spot because of being too emotional on hearing about
the retrenchment. I have no problems with references and am confident of getting another job. Those colleagues who
are still there, most are new, are vaguely aware of the situation and are still in shock as to the people the P
chose to get rid of. All seem to be seeking alternative employment despite their success in being chosen to stay
so the organisation is basically stuffed. I would dearly love for the board of management to recruit Dr R. Clark
for an assessment but unfortunately he has them eating out of his hands!
Victim (nee nearly Victor)
Well I am nearly a Victor. CP is now trying to manipulate things so I get sacked before my redundancy comes to fruition.
Cant give the details as it may become too obvious to the powers that be. Suffice it to say hopefully he has shot
himself in the foot in regards to workplace bullying detailed in email. I am taking sick leave as of tomorrow and
will try for workcover. Will play it all by ear and see what transpires. Very exhausting I must say but I will stay
on top. The union has been kept abrest of events but I am not too sure about this particular ones competency after
events that occured a year or so ago. Still it doesnt hurt I guess? I am considering a personal visit to worksafe.
Doctor is tomoz. Aaaargh!!
Dr John B Conlon
No, as far as I know (ok so I'm only a retired Anaesthetist). Insight is either extremely rare or unknown in Psychopaths.
Funnily enough I had a Psychopath to interview in my Psychiatry finals in 1973 - got the diagnosis right too. Examiners
v. impressed.
I digress. It was called "Bullying" at work and my eldest sister had a terrible few years before
she retired. When the bullies are confronted they deny everything and feel they have been doing their best for the
organisation, leaving a trail of destruction. In My Opinion: think Margaret Thatcher,
Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Packer.
Ralph Midnight
They know who and what they are. The smart ones do anyway. They are proud of their ability
to cut through the 'pointless' human emotion that clouds judgement and work in a universe that has no mercy.
HappyNow
I want to thank the ABC for re-running this show tonight and wished I had seen it back in 2005 when I was victimised.
I didn't understand the extent of my male 'friend's' perverseness to cruelty until it was too late when I suffered
post traumatic stress, depression, anxiety and ruined mutual friendships/ reputation. He also left a trail of financial
destruction for others who have engaged in business with him. The scary thing is that although he has recently declared
bankruptcy, he is back in Corporate Finance soliciting for investors and an MD of his own company.
If you have to endure a psychopath - remember two words: wasted energy. It's not
worth the pyhrric victory - because they are not capable of remorse.
In hindsight and from my lessons learned - to counteract any attacks, build a good sense of self worth, maintain
your integrity and never give in to self doubt. Try not to beat yourself up after they've pummeled your self esteem.
It would also be good to have an outlet where you can speak out in safety and who does not know the P.
I could ramble on but I think it's been said by everyone else. The only question I have is - do we know of any
psychopaths who have successfully reformed and regained a fully functioning conscience?
Kev
Hello fellow victims. Bernie (not my real name) - 24 Feb 2009 You make some excellent points. I would also add get
a small tape recorder and a microphone - there are 'spy' shops online that sell these marvels. Transcribe the conversations
and keep the recordings organized for the day that you need to play them. There are ones that will record up to
8 hours or more at a time so you needn't fuss with turning it on and off.
If you must stay in your job – start
preparing now for your wrongful dismissal suit. And start saving for a lawyer. If you
can - get a background check done on them and their resume. P's lie. They lie a lot and they lie
badly. Mine had 2 degrees on his resume (turns out he had none) and he didn't even leave a gap large enough to have
earned the degrees! That is a firing offense. If HR has had complaints or questions about the P before that may
be just what they're looking for - proof. Hire a private investigator to do reference checks on past jobs of his,
in addition to criminal and credit checks. If you can show that the company clearly had a monster in their midst
they'll want to hush you up. Always be anonymous - never point a gun at your head by letting the P know you're after
him. Never assume HR won't rat on you to him. A P will butter up HR and
get them on their side' they know the value of a befuddled HR dept.
Ex-wives and girlfriends are outstanding sources of info. You're not the first person they've screwed over. Credit
checks are usually very revealing as well.
They will stop at NOTHING to destroy you if they suspect you don't buy their act. Be very careful. Do not think
for a second if you let them know subtly that you're onto them that they will back down. Quite the opposite will
occur. Same thing if you're passive. Bernies ideas were very good.
Try to never be alone with one. Avoid looking them in the eye; you'll think better and hear better if you don't
if you know a true P you'll understand what I mean.
betty
I can't just leave my job to get rid of the psychopath in my life. The psychopath is the father of my son who uses
his manipulative ability and charm to convince people in power that it is me who is the bad one. So far, he has
done an excellent job of this with judgements praising him and demonishing me; and is now on his second attempt
trying to claim custody of my son who was the result of rape by this psychopath when I tried to end a relationship
with him. He is cool and charming to other people, lies constantly and tells more lies to cover up those lies and
somehow convinces people that I am the one at fault and I am the reason why my son hates him. He has no empathy,
no guilt for the way he treats my son or me, and enjoys seeing my son or me upset, and the Family Law supports and
encourages him. Since being raped by this person 8 years ago, I and my son have suffered continuously at the hands
of this controlling psychopath. Now my son is going to be forced to live with this person and so devastate and destroy
a child, not to mention his mother. Why is this happening - because he has convinced people that my son has no reason
to hate him, telling stories of being a wonderful father in his affidavits and such like, and so it is said it must
be me who is making my son hate him.
Drita
I know how you feel, I was married to someone like that and my only salvation was my strength to keep moving forward
and my faith that his day will come. I am still waiting but I am patient.
jc
Can you get them to try that test on him that shows his lack of empathy?
Pete
Dear Betty . I have never replied to anyone like this before but your story was to painful for me to ignore . The
problem with me telling you what I know about psychopaths is that it may not help you . My story is that I was married
to one for over 17 years . I would have left her a lot earlier in the relationship but I feared for my childrens
safety . I eventually moved out when my son had left home and my daughter came with me , she had had enough of her
also . I knew that my ex had been stabbing me in back for last few years but I only found out after leaving that
it had been going on the whole time i was with her . But getting back to your situation , I too feel that the law
is geared for the psychopath and there isn't much you can do , with in the law , other then doing your best and
not to be intimadated by them . There are a million things on the net you can look at on this subject but other
then this one , catalyst , the only other I find worth while was "Psychopaths:The Mask of Sanity " I think it is
called . Your story is awful but you cannot give up . You have your son to think of . Pete
Laura
Pete,
I don't really think theat the law is geared to support the Psychopath, just that the Psychopath is so ruthless
and clever that they know how to use it and be a step ahead of us all, unfortuantely.
Chris F
Sorry to hear this, my best friend's sister married a psychopath that she knew for only two months and got pregnant
before she realized she had made a huge mistake. I could barely listen to the stories of his abuse, they were so
horrific. To make matters worst, he came from a family of psychopaths, his parents and sister worked with him to
destroy his wife who was determined to divorce him and save the life of her child. Thankfully, in the end, he was
a dead beat dad and she won custody of her son when the judge gave him a choice of either paying the $50,000 in
back child support or give up custody of his son forever. He chose the money.
Laura
Dear Betty. Firstly, I never saw the doco, but I have read Dr Johns' book. Your story, is my story. Although I wasn't
raped, my Psychopaht didn't want children and I suspect he was feeding me black market morning after pills to miscarry
my other 7 pregnancies. I have two children that I kept due to leaving my ex partner on the two separate occiasions,
although I was bashed to the floor at 18 wks pregnant. My ex is also dragging me through the legal system, that
which I cannot afford. He always threatnened me that if I involved the police or the womens group he would tell
everyone I was an alcoholic and he would get the children taken off me. We are still fighting post 2 yrs. I have
tried to contact Dr John as I need advise on how to fight a Psychopath through the legal system and would even love
to help him write a book for women like us. We just have no hope against these men. It is thier way or no way and
we need help. I am beginning a course to work with abused women and would also like advise on which avenue to take.
My ex lied throughout the family report, his affidavit and is still lying and getting away with it. He is a criminal
and drug addict and has weekend accesss to drive my two innocent children around whilst he is drug affected. Not
right, and I want to know how I can have him diagnosed as a Psychopath before he does something to my children.
I haven't drank alcohol for over 2 yrs.
jennifer
Is there any chance of Aunty getting John Clarke to expand on the processes used by organisational psychopaths.
Most people are blinded by the superficial charm and don't see the victimisation occurring.
Clearly this is the psychopaths game and adds to their feelings of superiority. The actual damaging
process is much more insidious than the usually portrayed yelling bosses, and can come from any level of staff.
From experience the most devastating part is that others believe the lies and manipulative behaviour and the victim
is generally in a no win situation.
Sick of Psychopaths
After first watching this story some months ago I have been on a long learning journey . It still hasn't stopped
me from being a victim but it has helped me realise that i'm not the one who is mad . What I have learnt is that to stand a chance with a psychopath you must record your conversations with them
. It is the only way any one will believe you . There are plenty of discreet & preferably voice activated (so you
don't have to fiddle with it ) recording devices out there . Even if you are not sure of the legalities do it any
way as it can be presented anonymously . It is the only way to expose these people for the evil bastards they really
are .
anne of qld
As a public servant who has been targeted by psychopaths I can tell you that they are very successful. The percentage
that is quoted is so true. The first time I was targeted the person was so successful that I was up for Major Misconduct.
The union rep thought this person was great! I did what any smart person who wants to stay in the public service
I did what the CEO said (he did not like this person). I was sent on a psyche assessment -- I could have been sacked
for what this person was saying. After this I have been targeted by psychopaths two more times. The trouble is that
once is done once you are a big target. My best advice is to
1. professionally journal,
2. run to EAS,
3. learn your rights and
4. defend yourself to the hilt.
5. make the union your best friend
I also have tried to get on with HR - however I went relieving to another department recently and the psychopath
was the HRM!!! This is a first and is very difficult! Anybody tried to disprove a HRM lie! The absolute maliciousness
of the lie is difficult.
Judy, Canada
I have one other interesting comment to share. I was never bullied in school or throughout my twenties and thirties.
It started once I was successful in my business, compounded with lots of attention and high priced cars. Girls in
our schools are ganging up in groups of 4 or 5 and the victims are afraid to report it. I have preached about this
example lately as I feel its the root cause of the hardened women I have been exposed to as a business owner.
I feel the problem is in the adult women (something is lost in the mothering bond).
I personally enjoyed being a manager throughout my career with a long track record of mentoring many into success,
however I do not feel women are ready to rule quite yet until they keep their emotions in check. They truly play
an ugly game when they go into high gear. W5 had an excellent show on a successful firm that was destroyed by a
new female manger who utilized the divide and conquer principle and broke up a strong team as she ruined a once
thriving firm. Once it is underway why is it so hard to bring back? It would be wonderful to educate employers and
government specialists on the "divide and conquer" principle which basically is how the process works at destruction.
There are many wonderful women however the increase in jealous, brutal women who thrive off of breaking another
woman amazes me compounded with all the guilt that has been put on men, I personally do not feel many of these women
are ready for their new found power. Is it the left overs of going too far with human rights in Canada?
O C
I think female bullies are on the rise. I was brutalied by a female director. I had been a founing member of a successful theatre company for 8 years, with terrific reviews and was
well liked by almost all directors I worked with. Then I met M...... who was very charming at first. She was very
complimentary of my work for 3.5 weeks and then suddenly she snapped. She would isolate me from the rest of the
cast and ridicule me. Hwe comments were such a far cry from the compliments she had paid me for the majority of
the rehearsal period. With a week to go until opening I thought I would keep it to my self for the sake of the show.
My partner and friends knew I was having a hard time though as I would come home and break down. Then she did the
unspeakable-she fired me with only a week to go until opening! The worst part was that she turned the entire company
against me. When I sought support there was none to be found. She was this "brilliant and charming director who
knew best" and I was the incompetant actor who had to be replaced. It was crazy I had been there for 8 years and
in 4 weeks she had charmed the company into taking her side. I sought union and legal advice and there was little
i could do in the end. I left a company which I had built from scratch and I was completely abandoned by my fellow
actors. Looking back the signs were there. She had to always be the centre of attention, was constantly talking
up her accomplishments (in reality they were few) and was canoodling up to a young actor. Psychologists suggested
she was a psychopath, as the younger, more attractive and talented star I stood in her way of being queen bee. I
will report bullying much sooner next time. She got away with it but in time kharma will get her, perhaps the scathing
review of her direction of that production was that very kharma!!
Judy, Canada
Nice to find this. I was targeted and mobbed in Canada. It started in my company as one individual who I had given
a Manager title to started a process that escalated into pure hatred after so many had to respect me for so many
years. It truly reinforces we as humans have not evolved much since the dark ages. I am deperately trying to recover,
mostly from the impact of doubt as the chaos around me unravelled me as I reached out for help and no one believed
the scope of my situation. I have survived every hurdle as a business owner however being targeted, mobbed and degraded
for eight months was the most brutal experience of every hurdle I previously worked through without missing a beat.
The individual involved has a few mentally challenged family members and is an only child - daughter. I witnessed
three personalities as I experienced her cruelty. It still amazes me that she charmed her way into doubt. We have
huge issues here as I survived attacks on my business by a few women in banks who nsf'd checks with funds in the
account and got away with it. Its lingering here, people don't understand it and are complacent about it. It truly
sent me to Pluto trying to get attention as I was being brutalized and currently have pulled away from people temporarily
in an attempt to recover. Police won't deal with corporate bullies and lawyers want money so the freedom to bully
continues. Makes me sad that our evolution still promotes witch hunts just the modern version of todays witch hunts.
MR S
I have been dealing with a psychopath at work now for a month. It's a new job for me, and he obviously sees me as
a threat. He's systematically undermined me, turned people against me and done a whole host of underhanded things.
I'm actually lucky in that, I'm not the only person he's done it to. So now, there's a little clique of victims
that can compare experiences and build alliances against him. He's actually leaving for a management role in a bank
and has claimed "I'm going to make the people I manage lifes' hell", which I can believe!!! These people aren't
human, there is no boundaries to which they adhere and no lines in which they wont cross to defeat their 'enemy'
or perceived threat. The thing I've found is, you can't give them an inch, or anything in which they can use against
you; as inevitably, they will. Death to psychopaths! << Irony ;-)
survivor
I think these people are hurting deep inside and bullying other people make them feel
better.. They want to see us happy people hurt as much as they do.. The difference is that they will
never show their hurt but we do.. And they love it... I left my last job due to a Psychopath..
I have also been blinded by one i thought was a "friend".. She twisted
my words put me down to others seperated me from my other friends and finally egged my car when i stopped being
her victim .. She felt down when i was happy and elated when i was down and alone.. there is no defence but to walk
away and hope they meet their match one day. They pick on the nice or as they see weak.. Dont be an easy target..
My advise is to look strong.. and talk as though you have lots of people in your life... They like to pick on people
they think have no support..
Prepared
Dear survivor, I do believe C.P. are very fragile people who live in fear of being bullied or their weaknesses
uncovered. I confronted my work place bully who fits the C.P. profile to a T. I was calm and pulled them
aside for a quiet talk one on one and I said "I need to tell you that the way you treat me and speak to me makes
me feel hurt and upset. To my surprise they broke down crying in front of me like a baby. I felt a bit confused
but also felt I regained my power back. However the dramas continue.
Bullied At he job in church
Don't be fooled. In time you will see how ugly and abusive they can get!
They may just have found another victim to turn on. I'm having my first mobbing experience with a few CP's AND IT'S
EXTREME...and it's in the church!!!! The one place you'd least expect it. What makes it worse is my mother passed
and they knew I was even more vulnerable so they turned up the pressure. With every move they makes they use God's
name, and they really believe in what they're doing and that they're right. How sick!
move on
It's not a quick and easy process to change job's when there is a Psychopath getting the better of you. But it's
easier to find another church.. Don't put up with it. Love them and leave them and move on to another church i say..
surviver
Thanks Prepared, yes very fragile inside i agree.. And yes the dramas will continue until they understand what they
are doing.. because hurt people hurt people! Sometimes i feel like an easy target because of my gentle nature and
think i should harden up. But then i think, maybe thats how it started with them!
left the company
Yeah, they're handicapped. And what Bernie said.
Foot soldier
Well done Aunty. Typical of your informative/educative and socially responsible programing.
Agree with Dave (31st December), a follow-up is needed with more detailed facts about these psychopathic people
and information about what is being done to 'deal' with these people and support good employees of these typically
large corporate organisations. Interesting to note that most of the perpetrators mentioned
below in other comments are female!
Interesting given academic studies show that 0.5 of corporate psychopaths are female and 2% are men. The other
interesting theme noted from the comments is most people who wrote comments experienced the corporate psychopath
in an office environment. I am a nurse, and experienced the corporate psychopath both within health and in the university
environment. I survived the battle to fight the war. I lost at first, but eventually won the bigger fight. The perpetrator
was the same person in both cases. That person was eventually 'outed', and followed a gruelling process for that
person who lost much credibility, income and employment position. Psychologically I was a wreck, and after 4 years,
I am making MY WAY as a contract nurse, ensuring I do not belong to any one organisation or work for any one employer.
Its an isolating experience but safer this way! I am regaining my confidence slowly and beginning to once again
believe in myself - I have to for my children's sake. I look forward to the day when I can trust again, and move
to work with others in a permanent position for an organisation. To those seeking help while currently going through
it - YOU are the most important person here. YOUR sanity is at stake and subsequently your income, etc. I urge you,
move on before you are so badly damaged you are paralysed. There is life outside your curent employment, and many
lovely people. There is another way. You have skills, knowledge and experience - think laterally - use them in other
ways - and move on. You have the strength.
one of the victims
I am aghast, didn't know there was a psychological term for this until someone mentioned it to me the other day
and i 'googled' it. This is my boss to a tee. I knew in some part of me that i couldn't suddenly go from brilliant
to pathetic in my job overnight as i have never had so many complaints about the level of my work, but as we naturally
do i found myself in a lot of doubt and devastation. What is more concerning is that there seems not much way out
for the 'victims' unless they leave their employment and loose their job security, so a balance of the lesser of
the two evils in this current time. And as is so often the case, the bosses of these people never know and don't
believe it, so one has no where to turn. I pray God's justice be done to these people - karma has a way of working
itself out.
Jean
I have a new supervisor psychopath in my section of my workplace, a Indian women. I'm just a temp Mon-Friday and
know anytime that I can be asked your contract is over, though I've been with this organisation for 2 years. My
personal superviosr psychopath has many complaints about her and many people do not like her attitude and talk about
it behind her back.
My Supervisor Psychopath exaggerates situation and makes it bigger
than what it really is, is pushy, has unrealistic goals for each of us that is ridicules, lectures, tells lies,
is very stressed and unable to relax. told me she doesn't have time for anything let alone dream,
when our section had a good giggle at my nightmare which was I was sacked because I couldn't type fast enougth,
which I giggle at too! My staff used sacasm directed at her and embrasses her for example saying "we have matching
pimples", and when she got busy one day someone asked her "did you have your "Wit Bix this morning" and other staff
member offered her a Vallum! From this she giggled herself and run off and I did not see her again all day. However
I have noticed 1 change she has stopped yelling at her staff for some strange reason. I wander if she got told of
by the co-ordinator or manager about her behaviour.
Karen
You sound like a gossip/bully yourself.
jack of qld
Reply to Jean on the 10th May- this supervisor does not sound like to psychopath to me! They sound as if they need
training about how to do their job. All the people in the workplace sound as bad as her. I have experienced pyschopaths
at work - .5% of the workforce. A true psychopath will arrange a meeting about you with their supervisor(try to
arrange it without a union rep), invite you with no warning, dump all these examples that are false, put doubts
on your mental stability and then smile at you after the meeting when you are distressed!They will then run to HR
and complain. I have had a psychopath tell me a year afterwards that what they did to me was an exmaple of human
nature in action. This involved a work investigatin and a psyche assessment! It was very malcious! By the time you
go to HR - the HRM also adds more false lies! The true psychopath uses their "skills" to make your work colleagues
gang up on you to make your life miserable. I have encounted a few psychopaths in the workplace and have the mental
scars to show. I have learnt to professional journal, keep work journals, run to EAS and have become an expert at
writing grievances(public service). The supervisor in your example just needs training. By gossiping about her behind
her back you are just as bad! Until you meet a true psychopath you have no idea of how they destroy your life and
dreams. This has been done to me a couple of time! Don't confuse training needs with psychopathic behaviour!
Bullied At The Job In Church
Reply to Jean -- if she were a true CP what you described would only have set her off and she would have started
all of you on a path of mental and emotional demise....one employee at a time.
The Stoat
I have recently experienced working with a psychopath in the workplace and been, yet another, victim of her behaviour.
I came to the position with 20 years of experience in my job and therefore, felt confident that I could successfully
meet the challenge of a new work environment. Despite an extremely heavy workload in the first 1/2 year in the job
because of a review of the workplace, I felt that I was meeting my obligations with aplomb.
It was not until the
second 1/2 of the year that I realised that I had been targeted by my immediate boss. It came to light that I had
been successfully undermined for some time when I was called into the HR sector of the workplace and accused of
incompetence in all spheres. I was, of course, devastated and broke down in tears.
When I had resumed some semblance of calm, I sought to address these accusations in a letter and at a meeting
of all relevant management. I 'won' this battle but should have known that it would not end there...
My boss now saw this as a war, which she must win at all (any) cost. She easily fits the profile of a psychopath,
being willing to compromise all standards in a bid to 'win'. I think what really hurt me the most was her undermining
of me with both peers and clients. Unfortunately, by the time I realised that my character had been assassinated
I was - at best - an object of pity in the workplace: I was humiliated.
I felt powerless and began to suffer sleeplessness and, when asleep, subject to nightmares. I knew that I was
spiralling into depression. Fortunately for me, my husband eventually understood my predicament (it's hard to explain
as it all seems so paranoid to others)and, being financially stable, agreed that I should resign and take 'time
out' to recover.
I, like many others previously recorded, would recommend you do the same if you are in this predicament. What
is worse: being temporarily unemployed or permanently unemployable? I have been unemployed for just over a week
now (after holidays) and, although I have my moments, the nightmares are easing and I am beginning to feel more
like my old self.
This experience has been sobering to say the least and I will always be more guarded in future, but I am hopeful.
Thank you for allowing me to have my say and providing me with invaluable information that made me see that I am
not 'losing it' and to the person who put me onto this site.
morrie
I have recently experienced working with a psychopath who was my immediate boss. She quite easily fits the profile
- willing to do anything to 'win'. Despite others knowing of this, her
behavior is so insidious that she (up until the present) always prevails. Unfortunately, by the time I was aware
of her activities, I was so undermined and my character so assassinated that I became - at best - an object of pity.
I chose to resign from this position - for I would rather be unemployed in the short term than be unemployable in
the long term. I am now getting to sleep at night and the nightmares are abating, the spiral into depression having
been stalled. However, this has been a sobering experience and I will always be more guarded in future. I hope that
once too many people have resigned from working under this person that the alarm bells will begin to ring for administration,
but I'm not holding my breath. I tried to put forward my case but the damage had already been done and hence, my
word was discredited before I even opened my mouth. If you have been in this situation I also recommend that you
RUN! Thank you to the person who pointed me in the direction of this website.
Moving on
It is scary that this interview was conducted in 2005, yet there are so many recent posts. It just shows how real
the issue is.
I can relate to so many of your posts the manipulation & the deceit. Like many of you, my Manager is very charming
& has the CEO & other staff buttered up, resulting in my complaints largely falling on deaf ears. I am treated like
a nuisance, a disgruntled employee who has had a mere personality clash with their Manager. I sought help from a
psychologist & they have helped me see that the problems are not mine. The 2 best bits of advice that I have been
given which I want to share with you all are:
Remember the person you were before you met the 'psychopath' and base your confidence and self belief on
that.
Empower yourself by creating choices.(eg. get skilled in another area and open up your job choices)
I was really struggling, and the best thing I did for myself was to seek help from a psychologist & take the
pressure off myself to stay and fight. I am now planning an overseas trip & looking at further study and work options
so that I can leave my current workplace. I am trying my very best to take a positive out of a negative. It is hard,
I still have my moments, but I have belief in myself that I can do it.
I wish you all the best. Believe in yourselves, we will find light at the end of the tunnel.
Jane
This is an excellent discussion. Twice in my career, I've worked with bosses who are psychopaths. The first time,
I reported the abusive behavior to HR and, while that eventually led to the boss's leaving months later, he retaliated
in the short term and made me so miserable that I left. Never again would I report someone. I'd just get out fast.
The second time, I and several others were targeted and laid off as part of a restructuring. That's OK with me;
I'm out of there. I loved the job and the colleagues but not the new boss, who's trying to make herself look good.
I have since heard from other colleagues who are really suffering as they're now targets of this individual. It's
sad.
Graeham Yass
The transcript of this interview has been invaluable for me. I am sure I am working for a psychopath; exhibited
by constant lying and stealing ideas to present to the board as his own whilst at the same time berating be in emails
that are "blind copied" to the world. when talking to me in public or with customers/suppliers
he is charming and eloquent but privatly just tells me to "f....k off" at every opportunity. The
business he has run has collapsed and my division is up 300% over two years but I could not believe it when took
credit for my work, berated me to the board and colleagues and has explained away his failures. It is so frustrating
it has made me ill; I feel powerless. I only have work email and he reads all my correspondence so will post again
when I obtain one. Does anyone have any suggestions??
Anna Cotinaut
I used to live with a psychopath , he delighted in telling me the stories of his demise of colleagues so as to take
over their positions and secure his own. He was angry and abusive when his manipulation and deciet had no effect.
His mother is dying of cancer in another country and he has no feelings to see her before her death. He lived off
me financially . thank goodness for this documentary it is an eye opener.
It would be great to also run the psychopath that people live with. Since these people exist in the corporation
it is likey they also live with people god forbid.
I have been in a relationship with one such person he was my
second marraige and lived off me financially. He was abusive to me and the children he ran hot and cold and we had
to walk around on eggshells, the arguments and chaos was certainly a feature. A compulsive liar. He prided himself
on removing the property staff from a major institution and he is now the property manager in place. Before he left
he informed me he was commencing the demise of a colleague he felt was a threat to him. He had no remorse his mother
who is currently dying of cancer and he has no feelings to take time off to be with her. He abondoned his 6 year
old child to live and work in another country and for a long time treated her with creulty until she grew up and
he was left with a choice of being decent or not seeing her at all.
Emotionally i have been destroyed I have lost my confidence and jobs continually not understanding why i was
in a heightened state of anxiety and fear. Thanks to this dooumentary I can start to rebuild myself up to today
I felt all the chaos was my responsibility I see now that my responsibility was not doing something sooner.
victim
Being a victim of abuse by my team laeder and now manager for ten years I thought I was alone. I went to her boss
and then to HR to find that she had already waeved her web. As a result no job opportunies came my way and even
when I applied I was 'unsuccessful'. Bad reviews, being told that I was disliked by all of my peers and fellow employees,
I did not crack. Instead one day she slipped and someone saw her, I was saved mentally just knowing that someone
knew it was true.
Victim
I am being sued by a psychopath because I complained about him to his employer. He alleges my complaint affected
his career (which it didn't)and hurt his feelings. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants. As well as the
mental anguish, I could lose my entire life savings. The law does not allow me to use his mental disorder in the
defence of a defamation suit, even though his personel file shows a track record of psychopathic behaviour for the
last 6 years. If anyone has any advice I would be happy to hear it.
Rosie
What an education and for such an important topic the ABC should keep on top of this. Whilst I have never known
one in my 35 yrs of corporate experiences in UK and WA I do feel that my husband worked under a number of them in
WA over 20 yrs at the same national corporation. A professional with international experience his work could not
be faulted so they targetted and harassed him on little things. He had
support from colleagues so was lucky. Despite many reports to Worksafe for Bullying in the Workplace (he was OH&S
rep)they did nothing as they wouldn't take on a big corporation. He has now retired from there and has a dream job.
He was lucky as he didn't succumb to depression etc.
Davis
It's so wonderful to see 'Jerks at Werx' being seen for what they are, but help for victims is hard to come by.
The best advice I have seen is that the smart people leave - not always seen as economically viable nor the best
way to deal with ratbags because 'I haven't done anything wrong, I'm a hard worker and I'm fully qualified and capable
in the role I am in' tends to guide many vistims because surely the good people around me can see the truth of the
matter and right will out'. Right will probably not surface in time to save many victims who are left unable to
function anywhere, any more.
The potential, both personal and commercial that is stunted by Psychopatths is immense. Obviously better KPI's are
needed to weed them out of work.
Many bullies have similar traits, especially the upwardly mobile bully who targets
a superior. It seems incredible, but it happens.
The other incredible phenomenon is the pack of psychopaths that can inhabit workplaces. They can be either mangers
or workers. They have cliques that work to control and intimidate en masse. More should be done to research the
cultures that allow these cliques to survive and flourish at work.
Peace on Earth to all readers.
Pete
After just watching a rerun of this show i am positive my ex-wife is a psychopath. I
left her because of all those reasons that psychopath is a psychopath . Loveless and selfcentred just to name a
few . The problem is that she still uses and emotionaly abuses the children . Is there anybody that
could offer any sort of advice. Pete
Anonymous
The most important things are: To set limits on her behaviour, which can be viewed as defensible (try a formal agreement
in writing). Accept that she will often win. Don't get drawn into attacking her.
Avoid alcohol when seeing her, being with children. Remember that she will attack you and acuse you of doing things
she does
Another victim
An ex-colleague of mine forwarded the link of this article to me - this person knew the hell I had gone through
under my "Corporate Psychopath" and after reading this article, it is such a relief that my suspicious now have
a foundation! It's not me or the 4 other people before who left this role. It's the fact that there is a corporate
murderer at the top killing off her staff members...emotionally and mentally. It is
just sad that a number of high performing organisations seem to thrive with such "leaders" and the attitude is,
if you can't take it, then leave it. Perhaps it's time to shake it up a little more and find a nice
little island to ship these psychos off to! After all, we are not fans of letting repeat offenders off likely in
this country, perhaps we can apply the same rules here.
And for those who have come out of this awful experience
alive, I take my hat off to you.
a survivor
My experience took place in a remote area, and unfortunately we were sent 2 psychopaths who relished each other's
support, and went to work on the only female in the workplace. I was totally mystified by their behaviour and
most of all had no idea of the backstabbing that was going on that lost me the support
of colleagues and management in a place where I had spent a wonderful, positive 20 years. I still
don't know what they said but the attitude of the 'firm' towards me was evidence enough.
Being abandoned (on the
word of these outsiders) by those who had previously respected and valued my contribution to the team was a shock,
however the unfairness of having little option other than to leave when you have been the victim, is the worst,
as it takes away your security and could ruin lives.
Personally my life outside the organisation has been wonderful, and opened up many
opportunities that have proven to be life altering. I try to be sympathetic to those psychopaths
who live in such a negative world, disliked by all they have failed to charm. In a small community it's not easy
to maintain this behavior without people realizing what you are like after a while. As long as I harbor resentment,
they are still controlling me, and that isn't going to happen.
Your suggestion of sending them to an island is not original. Whoever thought of it before sent them to my island!
No more please!
standyrgrd
They will never be shipped off because organizations love CP as they rule buy fear and will do anything to get the
job done. I have been working with a CP for 3 years now and reported her for slapping another staff member at work
on two different occasions. The response I go from HR is that the slap may have been done jokingly and if so there
will be no formal investigation. It's been one month now since I reported this physical abuse and the CP is still
in the corporation, in the same job! She shows no remorse because when I report some of her bullying to her superiors
she just ups the anti.
Bernie (not my real name)
Yep me too, my boss is a classic. Given psychopathic characteristics and the requirements of organisations, they
are a perfect fit. Even if everyone who can do anything about them knows, they are so valuable as predators, eliminators
of human problems and super active achievers that they provide a valued service in organisational life. They are
a price organisations are willing to pay.
Play the game to win. Why, because it can be fun.
Slow it all down, be polite and supportive, formal and legal, get really into the detail and complexit. They
have no idea what you will do next, don't let them know your plans, change your plan without notice, don't settle,
ask to think and consult, be committed to the best outcome for all. Just hit the ball back gently over the net,
postpone/decrease stimuli wherever possible, reduce face to face dealings, deal through others.
With no instant gratification they will give up and go away.
Now provide them a face saving out and you win.
Work long term and they have no defence.
Keep records, wait, wait, wait and then.... I'll let you know what's next ...
Marg
Bernie, I tried all of this as I desperately needed to keep my job. They don't give up and go away....they just
make it worse. After almost suffering a nervous breakdown, and conytinued thoughts of taking my life....I left.
Although the nightmares still continue to haunt me after 4 years, it was the best thing I ever did to just up and
leave.
Emancipated
Wow-reading your comments makes me feel like fighting harder than ever! These bullies need to be made accountable
for their atrocious actions. I've been working in my current environment for three years, and the psychopath that
I have had to deal with has become more devious and manipulative as the years have progressed.
With a 60% turnover in staff, one would think that that would be enough to trigger "alarm bells' about our manager
and manage the behaviour of the one common denominator-the bully. Unfortunately, many qualified and valuable staff
members have walked away from their jobs. They later described themselves to me as feeling “useless and incompetentâ€.
My "Team Leader' has based her career on the the work of others, and she ensures that staff members maintain
a sense of gratitude towards her-even though the work is not her own.
I decided that I had mentally had enough of the stress involved in working with her, and I took the BIG STEP in
submitting a formal grievance. I needed to get to a point within myself that I could handle the fall out associated
with this step. I knew that other people had taken her on in the past, and that they had eventually lost their case.
They walked away down trodden and shaken by the experience of working with her. HOWEVER, thankfully as a result
of their complaints, their voices now count as I have placed a formal grievance against her. Most staff members
only stayed for a short period of time within their roles, and therefore had little time to collate concrete evidence
to support their complaints.
I am a compliant, hard worker and I take pride in my work. I tried for a long time to keep my head down and stay
"out of her radar' but eventually you do become a target. My best advice to you all would be to do what I did a
year ago-STOP answering your phone at work/mobile when he/she calls, and AVOID all informal one-on-one meetings.Instead,
build evidence with emails and create a solid case. Always have a representative with you when you have to meet
with him/her, and when you place your grievance, make sure that you have organised a go-tween email receiver/sender,
so that when the bullying behaviour is turned up, then you have another "listening ear'. The last most important
thing that you should do is JOIN YOUR UNION.
Also remember, that these bullies only make up a small proportion within a workplace: WE MAKE UP THE MAJORITY
so let's stand up to psychopaths and GET RID OF THEM!!!!
After I had placed my grievance with HR I was told that I was the first one to make an "official complaint' against
my boss. I was shocked when I heard this as she has been arguing with "everyone' for years. Another staff member
mustered up the confidence to place a second grievance against my boss after me.
So the whole process has been going on for months, but it has been the best therapy that I could have ever received,
and I feel a great sense of relief. I don't know if I have a job.
Moderator: Please keep posts to a reasonable length - under 200 words.
Geoff
Most interesting story.. I am the victium of a corporate Psychopath. I found he confided in me in private and then
denied it later on...he gave me such a hard time that when my time ended no one in the section would support me..
they considerd his versions of various accussions were correct.
They thought he was a fun guy he convinced his management that he was right. when backed into a corner he was abusive
and angry.. he made sure that all staff heard his outburst and moved the situation that I was in the wrong. In private
meetings he put down other members of staff.. he would made unconfortable and inappropiate gay comments to me...
in the end I was terminated from my employment.. I am now suffering severe depression and am finding it difficult
to move on a get a job... I would like to take legal action but the money is a problem
Don
I experienced an almost IDENTICAL situation last year, right down to the sexual harrassment. It was done in such
a subtle way with jokes etc that it was hard to detect from an outside perspective. I finally complained and was
successful, I've found a new job. Although the guy is such a psychopath that now he is appealing and trying to get
his job back. These guys or women, will seriously stop at nothing to win. You just have to be proud and not take
their BS, stand up for your rights.
trish
Very interesting reading this article and discussions. I work with one at the moment, thankfully this person is
not my boss so they have had limited success in effecting me. However I see fairly regularly the impact on their
immediate staff and it is very frustrating, we work in a small office and it is not easy to address the issues.
This person's narcissism is so bad they they believe they are superior to the CEO although is charming to his
face. How common is this and the fraudulent behaviour?
Australia Bully Manager
Great article- thank you! I have been the focus of a jealous, intimidating, undermining & incompetent workplace
manager for over a year. It has since come to light that this woman has seen over 8 staff leave due to her psychopathic
impact.
I am desperately trying to find a new job. I am also trying to lend a ear to 2 other staff members who
have issues in the workplace. The CEO, HR & other all back each other & ignore complaints & OH&S issues. Yes- It
is Toxic. I have taken a lot of leave, yet no one even is questioning what is going on with all the staff.
To anyone else in this position- I feel or you... but get out quickly- i regret waiting so long (& thus into
a recession job market)due to thinking I was the one going mad!
scared
Can't beleive i'm on this page finding so many people in the same situation as myself. Something needs to be done.
I feel like i'm going crazy. Been on my job for 9 years, the last 2 have been a living hell working with a psychopathic
co-worker and a passive aggressive supervisor. I have a plan with legal help hopefully it will work. I'm using my
sick time and hopefully can get my unemployment.
Andrew
I have a workplace psychopath at the engineering company where i work. She decided that i would be her victim on
day one and constantly harasses me. She also makes complaints against me to the boss. The key problem is that he
takes her word as gospel.
She tried to get me sacked after 3 months, however i survived after proving myself. This has only intensified
her determination. She made a complaint against me again today. We had an argument and after she won it, she then
decided to get revenge on me (who takes revenge for winning an argument???) by complaining about me on an unrelated
matter.
Luckily my immediate supervisor, as well as the other job team leaders in the business back me and share my concern
about this individual.
But i don't know how long i can stand up to this bullying.
Lisa
I am working with one currently. She is constantly harasses me and others. She is lying all the time. She is incompetent
with her work but she always tells her superiors that her mistakes made by me. I have worked so hard because she
always gives me incorrect information or wrong information which has increased my work load. Although someone can
back me up as they have experienced same thing as I have been constantly experienced on a daily basis, I don't know
how long it can last.
Dude
I had never experienced a "workplace psychopath" until 3 years ago. After researching the internet to obtain some
understanding of these people I became amazed that so many of these low life mongrels exist. I am a long serving
Police Officer who works in a small "specialist" area. Our OIC fits all the criteria of an "attention seeking" workplace
psychopath. The working environment is absolute hell to say the least. This person exhibits swinging moods, bizarre
behaviour, extreme self pity, manipulation and deceit. This persons constant whining is immense and very difficult
to take everyday. I have experienced difficulty sleeping at night over a long period
of time because of the behaviour. When this person goes on holidays the workplace becomes relaxed
and everyone is so happy. Everyone in our office "suffered in silence" for a very long period of time until we all
started realising that we all felt the same. Thankfully higher management have now become aware of the behaviour
of this person, however I have now leart that it's not an easy issue to deal with. This person is shameless and
is fighting "tooth and nail" to keep their position and is stooping to very extreme manipulation and deceit in doing
so. I just hope this person moves soon.
Don
Absolutely, a follow up doco would be really good, I just went through hell last year because of one of these idiotic
psycos. I luckily walked away with my sanity but now a year later his bosses are still protecting him. I don't understand
why bosses would want someone like him to work for them, completely counter productive and damaging to the company
and the workers. One of my co-workers is now having to put together a lawsuit.
Alicia
I am currently studying personality in psychology and am about to do a research proposal on workplace psychopaths.
I am motivated to do this personally as I have been the victim of workplace psychopaths not once but twice, and
have seen many others suffer the same fate as me long after I have left an organization.
This is a real problem,
one that is an 'underbelly' of the workplace. Education campaigns or wider community knowledge about this fact of
the workplace really needs to be addressed. As too many people that I have spoken to that are going through or have
gone through it, feel that the problem is with themselves. It wrecks self esteem and impacts greatly on the quality
of life, something really needs to be done about this problem.
Dave
Good Luck and keep the end goal in sight. I think Corporations, starting with HR (the buggest bungling idots that
make situation worse) need to change mindset about thinking the bully must be supported and not the victim. Call
me crazy, but if someone has the guts to complain it is 99% valid.
Emancipated
HR exists to protect the interests of the corporation-this involves smoothing problems
over as economically possible. It takes an enormous amount of courage to stand up to a psychopath,
and it needs to be done in a carefully crafted and timely manner. Gather your evidence, join your union, and then
strike when you are informed and equipped! Patience first...then fight when the the time is right.
Alison
I left a job because of a 'workplace psychopath'. Fortunately for me I was resilient and got on with my life and
career. I thank her for the psychopatic attitude as it was a steep learning curve I will never forget and
has been a lesson in how NOT to treat people particularly from a management point of view!
krentz
When you consider that these people literally don't care at the end of the day, consider
their psychopathy as a distinct advantage over the general population, whom they view as either moronic, stupid,
or wrong, and are incapable of empathising with others, at the end of the day there is nothing to sympathise with.
These people are not having a hard time, they just leave us with all their crap. They are not "cruel" or "nasty",
as these are emotive words, and they do not feel (much) emotion. They just do whatever
they can to get whatever they want, and damn the rest. As luck would have it, emotions are easy to manipulate, and
so that's what happens most of the time.
Luckily I'm very aware of the nature of psychopathy and quite perceptive regarding people so I am unlikely to
fall into the same trap many others have done. Unfortunately, this will seem like a declaration of war to most psychopaths,
and they love challenge and competition. Protect your own best interests - that's the best advice I can give you.
Remember that healing takes time and there is always light at the end of the tunnel, you might just have to travel
a long time to find it.
Suzette monohan
hi
i agree with what you said but I am in the same boat as many out there seem to be and i have decided to become a
psychopath in theory not practice so that I can undermine the other psycho thats driving me crazy at work.I reckon
its better to go outside of the usual norms and head straight to the core issue MADNESS and freak them out and let
them run out of the building for a change.........
Kathy
Unless you are a psychopath you cannot compete with them - you will be the one that ends up emotionally destroyed.
Also you are lowering yourself to their standard. The only thing to do is avoid them as much as possible. It is
better to find a better place to work. Walk away with your sanity, don't waste your precious time and energy playing
their stupid mind games.
lison
Good advice Dave (posted 31 Dec). I agree. Get rid of them as they don"t care if they get rid of you for their own
insecurities and reasons! "The greatest evil is when good people do nothing" a famous quote. I truly believe in
that. Don"t be AFRAID. The truth IS the truth. Keep evidence and fight back. I wish all you fellow sufferers the
very best outcome, believe in yourselves (you are not going mad) and be kind and gentle to yourselves .Get good
support to help you. Unless you remember you have rights as a human being on this planet nothing will change.
Stephanie
I had a manager who was obviously a psychopath from the get-go. He broke up a successful team and fired many competent
people. He was new, and when I tried o explain to him how the owners had trained us to do things, he told me, "I
don't like people telling me what to do. Obviously they have hired me for a reason. I didn't see your name on the
list of applicants for my job; if you don't like the way I do things then you need to apply for my job." So I did!
Along with a long cover letter to the owners explaining why I was applying for the position, and imploring them
to fire him even if they didn't hire me. They did not hire me, but they did get rid of him. He is now a fast-food
manager, hee hee. I also managed to keep another psychopath I had worked at another job for from being hired for
my supervisor's job. Knowlege protects, don't be afraid, it's only a lousy job!
Stephanie
Whatever you do, NEVER feel sorry for the psychopath; he will use it against you because in his eyes it makes you
weak and he can't relate to the emotion. Pity those who pity, for they are horribly vulnerable to psychopathic control,
mainly because normal people don't want to believe the psychopath exists.
Corporate Psychopaths
Once I realised my boss was a corporate psychopath, it was almost a relief and everything began to make sense. Unfortunately
it was too late for me and many colleagues in terms of the mental abuse she caused. She appeared so charming to
others, yet I can only describe her as being a truly wicked person. There is light at the end of the tunnel. I took
her to court. I agree that they cannot be changed. they are fundamentally nasty people. The only solution is recognise
the traits early and leave the company quick.
Carol Poland
It is a relief to know someone else is a victim and has taken legal action against this type of abuse.
I am very interested to know details of the court proceedings and the outcome and whether our justice system recognised
the actions of a psychopath to be a criminal offence.
I recognise my Ex Husband as having the profile of a Corporate
Psycopath and describe him as being a callous, unscrupulous, cruel, evil person.
Throughout 32 years of marriage he treated me as if I was an employee and he had no concept of how to interact
as a husband or father.
Divorcing him did not provide me with an escape from the abuse.
I believe he is the perpetrator of extreme emotional and psychological abuse and his actions, which also involve
fraud should be recognised as criminal offences.
I look forward to your reply, which will help me to move forward in the right direction.
I am not being frivolous or vindictive. I am wanting to deal with the facts and the abuse in a positive way.
almost victim
My psychopath boss is new to the boss game and was easily spotted as she chose to target everyone subordinate at
once. Unfortunately, her bosses love her (more psychopaths?) so she is not going anywhere anytime soon. We are protected
by our union so she can't just fire anyone, either. Unions were formed for a reason, afterall. We are mostly women
and we confide in each other. Thwarting her is a group effort and supporting each other makes the constant harassment
more tolerable. We consulted higher ups in the union, from outside our organization, and we were advised to "keep
the devil we know" as getting rid of her would be next to impossible and her replacement might be even smarter and
nastier. My advice is talk, talk, talk to each and support each other and under no circustances let the psycopath
get you alone! Find a buddy to go into the office with you as a witness. You have that right. And DON'T let them
see you sweat...stay calm and be prepared.
Viva la France
Let them know you're not alone too, alone = prime pickings, having family and friends, a life outside takes you
away from making them money.
I was accused of using our adopted children as an excuse to leave work overtime and they used to say that "on
time" was "early" and other days, "I feel so sorry for you girls, you should leave on time tut tut big mean bosses
should let you go", these same people who questioned when you left on time other days. That's how they do your head
in if you aren't ahead of the game. So get ahead of the wolves and look at their eyes-they can't tell the truth
on the run.
Having to justify, "Why are you going home early?" when I did my days work to the time I was given when first
starting there and choosing. "Why do you deserve to have the new piece of equipment?" Asked another new psycho on
the way up (when they had one and it broke, they guilted others into giving up theirs for them).
Some "religious" psychos mixed in too, my congregation is praying I get better, "can you work overtime so I can
go home on time guilt free?" (because I have none) and gossip gossip gossip and tell others to not complain when
the boss does her door slamming swearing act. Play the religious card and you're above question, like religion-he
goes to church=he's good. How many killers were altar boys?
"I will always be your fren" a comment made by a girl from overseas online who knows perfectly well how to spell
friend-she wanted to be my "fren" because I "did so much for her" (i.e. she wanted to be my nothing, my leach, she
was, I was a bit of a larf for her and her friends who didn't think I understod their foreign language). "Dance
like no one's watching" i.e. dance around and look crazy while I look sane. So I danced, like I always do. "Oh God
has been so bad to you, how can God be so bad to one person?" (said to draw me in), I don't believe in a god, so
I, unlike them only have myself accountable for my own actions. Good thing I heard through the grapevine about their
online friendship game and fun parties that they deliberately didn't invite myself and a few others to to hurt (but
it didn't, I was out to dinner with a real friend)- these parties were just excuses to drink and bad mouth from
what one of them told me- drunks get away with anything don't they? Drink makes your tongue loose and you say what
you really think- others talked earlier before they asked for my email address and I gave them my old one. People
who know how to spell do it, or are trying to lie through semantics, not getting "board" "You're a good sole", ever
read that from someone who knows how to spell again and again until then? I just laugh like they're illiterate and
blind because they are both. They don't get it.
They try to cling to their own jobs b
Redacted
I to have experienced workplace bullyimg like what is described (for that is what it is) However it is not just
Bosses that do this. My missfortune was to upset (as they see it) a member or two of a Fraternal society by standing
my ground when the intent was to teach me a lesson or in their slang break my back.
Then the abuse started, roumors spread, jokes made at my expensive, all behind my back. False tails that I bullied
people. Machinery I used damaged and it implided I did it. My car tyres let down, tyres puntured. Vehicle keyed
and sprayed, but with paint that can be cleaned off (This way the victim can be made to seem a fool by making a
mountain out of a mole hill.) After all what damage was done, see the paint comes off with petrol. do you see how
this attack works?))
Look up Gang Stalking, Brighting, Mobbing, Gaslighting.
It is a sad fact that there is a subculture of these Psycopaths in society that have got organised, read books
and study tactics. They see themselves as normal, to them it is the victim that is defective. But as stated hear
they have no true Empathy, they can fain emotion, friendship, affection.
In most cases appear extremely bright, Intelligent, illuminated. They have though drove all emotion out of their
souls in their desire to improve their minds and as they see it perfect themselves. But they gather and co-operate
like a Pack of Rabid wolves that can think.
They actually see their role as one of fighting for the common under dog. Righting wrongs by bullying people
into shape, making them good people.
But intruth they get excited almost erotically on stealling from a mark (The person under attack maybe called
a Mark, Marked one, Beyond the Pale, The green Man, Marked with chalk or caled the Project, work in progress).
A person given the task of knocking a peron maybe called a riviter or Hammer smith. (Yes they have their own
slang language a tactic taken from the Art of war, It is designed to enable them to talk in a way by insinuation
of a idea, so someone over hearing can not understand the hidden message.) It is a method taught by experience of
doing or having done to you.
The ultimate high for them is to drive a Victim to self harm through trickery or depression. Being able to kill
without even touching the victim is the greatest high or to them the mark of a Grand wizard.
Not all Faternal people are like this Just a organised group within. Wolves hidding amongst the Sheep from the
Sheppard.
Sorry to have to write in such away but I need to proctect my children, my family and those who risked their
lives to save me. before they drove me off the edge!
Sufferers need to organise, just learn from the fight against slavery! don't re-invent the wheel look to history
for how to fight back!
Onthe edge
This pack you mention is so true, the premeditated action plan
jen
Need to add this to get rid of this last unthoughtful comment. CP is not about anyone being paranoid - it is about
what is lacking in the CP not the victim.
Dougally
I saw this episode the first time round and instantly realised my manager's manager was one. He fitted all but one
of Dr John's characteristics.
My direct manager was weak (read sycophantic) so I was in direct management contact with his manager daily and
in effect had to manage the situation myself. I documented the behaviours over time with HR (with some behaviour's
demonstrated in the company of others) and then when the show was aired I also provided HR the web links.
Keep in mind HR is there to protect the company not you - and HR did raise the issue with him despite my asking
otherwise and made it worse for me – so I suggest you leave the HR contact until you have your next career step
in progress. Oh and obviously never ask the P for a reference or to be a referee.
I resigned once I'd had enough, but it was on my own terms.
A couple of years later my P mate got pushed out because of a repeat performance and second report to HR. The
gent before me in the same role was the third. So a clear pattern was established. I could only let myself be the
first the first to report this, but not be the one to resolve it. Despite it being unfair to me this was not my
responsibility to resolve – HR unfortunately felt they could resolve it and perceived it as a personality clash.
HR and anyone I spoke to continued to be incredulous about it, except a couple of people who had experienced the
P before when they worked for him.
Your own sanity must prevail! You cannot stay and fight on your own! You cannot stay because you enjoy your job
however unfair that is! If you stay you get mentally screwed up! Then you are no good for yourself or your family!
Leaving protects you from long term mental harm and self-doubt. It took me some time to get my own "Groove" or "Mojo"
back after the experience because I did stay too long!
Good jobs do exist elsewhere for good people, so go for those! Put the bad time down to experience. You do grow
from these events. I can tell you I don't take the same crap anymore and directly challenge similar behaviours now
– even with a few somewhat interesting but not P type characters in my new company. One was made an offer she
couldn't refuse the other was counselled.
The game is to win the game of life, not right every wrong done to you. I hope my story helps anyone else move
forward...
jen
good on you. this is one of the clearest comments here about roles and relationships when confronted with this situation.
Elsy
Thank you, it is nice to know I can move on... I work with someone who is incapable of empathy, blatantly lies,
rewrites history and is very good at covering their incompetence. Any issues are everyone else's fault! 1.5 years
ago when members of the team I work with realized we weren't isolated victims we addressed it with our management
team. Management are only now addressing it following written complaints- I have an interview next week- and am
looking forward to working in a 'normal' work environment - making healthy work relationships. I only hope I can
learn to trust others (including myself - I'm not crazy!) - particularly managers again.
Simon
So if there are 312 million people in the USA and half are male and 2 % are psycopaths that makes over 3 million
psycopaths. There has to be compulsory screening. They have to be identified on their ID's with a P letter the rest
us normals getting a N letter. Then when you take on a job a business partner or marry you can see if you are hooking
up with a P.
I worked for a medium sized org once and the CEO was a P but it turned out a criminal P. It was many years later
after I had left, that I saw his photo in the newpaper. He had been put away for corruption, a crim, I was so please
as he was one of the most evil people I had ever met.
“There are many psychopaths in society, that actually, we virtually know nothing about. These are the psychopaths
who don’t necessarily commit homicide, commit serious violence, or even come to the attention of the police. They may
be successful businessmen. They may be successful politicians. They may be successful academics. They may be successful
priests. They exist in all areas of society. There is a growing awareness that psychopathic behavior is around us in
all walks of life.”
According to popular wisdom, psychopaths are crazed and bloodthirsty serial killers. The reality is not so simple.
While many psychopaths do commit violent crimes, not all psychopaths are criminals and not all criminals are psychopathic.
Psychopaths are found in many walks of life and are often successful in competitive professions. However they are also
ruthless, manipulative and destructive. Equinox reports on techniques developed by psychologists to work out whether
a person is psychopathic and shows how brain scientists are coming close to mapping the malfunctions in the brain that
cause a person to be a psychopath. In Britain one person in 200 is likely to be a psychopath. However psychopaths are
thought to be responsible for half of all reported crimes and to make up between 15% and 20% of the prison population.
The programme looks at the most recent research into the brains and behavior of psychopaths and assesses the prospects
for the treatment or containment of this antisocial group of people who create such a disproportionate amount of destruction.
Psychopaths who have been convicted of appalling crimes explain with disturbing clarity what motivated them in their
violent and destructive behavior. They speak without shame, guilt, remorse or empathy with their victims. Though they
are articulate and, at times, plausible and charming, they lack the range of emotions experienced by the rest of society.
They know the difference between right and wrong but they do not feel it. Robert Hare, Professor of Psychology at the
University of Vancouver, has devised a system of assessment called the Psychopathy Checklist. In specialized interviews,
psychologists assess individuals on a scale of 0 to 40 for a series of character traits, including callousness, superficial
charm, lack of empathy and many others (for more detail look at How to recognize a psychopath). Anyone whose score is
greater than 26 is diagnosed as psychopathic.
Narcissists are at a greater risk for high blood pressure and heart problems; Also, men with higher levels of lead are
more likely to be pessimistic; And, women consistently report higher levels of pain than men. CBSNews.com's Nick Dietz
has the details.
The truth is that companies such as Facebook are basically the corporate world's equivalent of sociopaths, that is
to say individuals who are completely lacking in conscience and respect for others. In her book
The
Sociopath Next Door, Martha Stout of Harvard medical school tries to convey what goes on in the mind of such
an individual.
"Imagine," she writes, "not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or
remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the wellbeing of strangers, friends, or even family members.
Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish,
lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except
as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools."
"companies such as Facebook are the corporate world's equivalent of sociopaths."
A commentator on the Guardian suggests that "companies such as Facebook are the corporate
world's equivalent of sociopaths." Might this be true?
While I wouldn't wish to wallow in a definition of sociopathy, I did happen to ask a couple of Facebook's advertising
clients how they found dealing with the world's most powerful brain child.
"They breathe their own fumes," one executive told me. And he is someone who gives Facebook rather large sums of
money.
It is in this, surely, that Facebook has its power. It tells us all that in tomorrow's world, everything will be
social. If you're not riding in the social Ferrari, you will be but a mere cipher in the commerce of life. Worse, you
will be a mere individual, someone with absolutely no friends in the playground.
And who would want to be an isolated individual or part of an isolated company? It's tempting, then to view Facebook's
world picture as expressing the mindset of a sociopath--or even a con man.
The driving force of both is that their world is the only one that matters. Their own personal joy lies in dragging
everyone else into their vortex and watching as everyone stares rapt in an excitement they can't quite define. There's
a lot of fun in that.
Is there some ultimate meaning and spiritual uplift in the proceedings? Not so much. Rather, it's the power of the
game and the protagonist's power in the game that matter.
The gullible--that would be us--play along because the game seems to offer something that we will enjoy: success
or approbation, perhaps.
But, in the end, it's rather hard to believe that every move Facebook makes is the move of a benevolent association
or a social revolutionary, instead of a move by an advertising company.
Who might suspect, in their private hearts, that privacy is not something that enjoys too much philosophical debate
at Facebook HQ? Rather, it's simply something that stands in the way of selling more adverts. It's an inconvenience
that gets in the way of economic progress.
Because economic progress is far more important than any individual's right to keep herself to herself. That's not
Facebook's fault, some might say. That's just the world we live in. We've all come to believe that economic progress
matters more than anything.
Naturally, this might all change a little should one of the Facebook management run into some sort of personal bother
that becomes public. But, until then, let's knock down those privacy walls and make some money.
It is wrong, of course, to suggest that Facebook's management might be isolated in their apparent views. Google,
too, would surely prefer it if you gave it more and more information so that it can sell more and more--and, cute phrase
this, "better"--adverts.
For Naughton, sociopaths are "individuals who are completely lacking in conscience and
respect for others."
I have a feeling that the people who run Facebook and Google aren't sociopaths in their private lives--should they
have them. It's just that when they create one of those social networks we call companies, a strange group-think takes
over. That strange group-think doesn't so much distort reality as try to create a new one.
We are now living in the new reality. It's one in which it all has to start with people. People are products, products
are money, and money is power.
Once you have the power, you can even try to tell governments what to do and what to think. And that's so much fun.
Hare estimates that 1 percent of the population — 300,000 people in Canada — are psychopaths.
He calls them “subclinical” psychopaths. They’re the charming predators who, unable to form real emotional bonds,
find and use vulnerable women for sex and money (and inevitably abandon them). They’re the con men like Christophe Rocancourt,
and they’re the stockbrokers and promoters who caused Forbes magazine to call the Vancouver Stock Exchange (now part
of the Canadian Venture Exchange) the scam capital of the world. (Hare has said that if he couldn’t study psychopaths
in prisons, the Vancouver Stock Exchange would have been his second choice.) A significant proportion of persistent
wife beaters, and people who have unprotected sex despite carrying the AIDS virus, are psychopaths. Psychopaths can
be found in legislatures, hospitals, and used-car lots. They’re your neighbour, your boss, and your blind date. Because they have no conscience, they’re natural predators. If you didn’t have a conscience,
you’d be one too.
Psychopaths love chaos and hate rules, so they’re comfortable in the fast-moving modern
corporation. Dr. Paul Babiak, an industrial-organizational psychologist based near New York City, is
in the process of writing a book with Bob Hare called When Psychopaths Go to Work: Cons, Bullies and the Puppetmaster.
The subtitle refers to the three broad classes of psychopaths Babiak has encountered in the workplace.
“The con man works one-on-one,” says Babiak. “They’ll go after a woman, marry her, take her money, then move on and
marry someone else. The puppet master would manipulate somebody to get at someone else. This type is more powerful because
they’re hidden.” Babiak says psychopaths have three motivations: thrill-seeking, the pathological desire to win, and
the inclination to hurt people. “They’ll jump on any opportunity that allows them to do those things,” he says. “If
something better comes along, they’ll drop you and move on.”
How can you tell if your boss is a psychopath? It’s not easy, says Babiak. “They have traits similar to ideal leaders.
You would expect an ideal leader to be narcissistic, self-centred, dominant, very assertive, maybe to the point of being
aggressive. Those things can easily be mistaken for the aggression and bullying that a psychopath would demonstrate.
The ability to get people to follow you is a leadership trait, but being charismatic to the point of manipulating people
is a psychopathic trait. They can sometimes be confused.”
Once inside a company, psychopaths can be hard to excise. Babiak tells of a salesperson and psychopath — call him John
— who was performing badly but not suffering for it. John was managing his boss — flattering him, taking him out for
drinks, flying to his side when he was in trouble. In return, his boss covered for him by hiding John’s poor performance.
The arrangement lasted until John’s boss was moved. When his replacement called John to task for his abysmal sales numbers,
John was a step ahead.
He’d already gone to the company president with a set of facts he used to argue that his new boss, and not he, should
be fired. But he made a crucial mistake. “It was actually stolen data,” Babiak says. “The only way [John] could have
obtained it would be for him to have gone into a file into which no one was supposed to go. That seemed to be enough,
and he was fired rather than the boss. Even so, in the end, he walked out with a company car, a bag of money, and a
good reference.”
“A lot of white-collar criminals are psychopaths,” says Bob Hare. “But they flourish because the characteristics
that define the disorder are actually valued. When they get caught, what happens? A slap on the wrist, a six-month ban
from trading, and don’t give us the $100 million back. I’ve always looked at white-collar crime as being as bad or worse
than some of the physically violent crimes that are committed.”
The best way to protect the workplace is not to hire psychopaths in the first place. That means training interviewers
so they’re less likely to be manipulated and conned. It means checking resumés for lies and distortions, and it means
following up references.
Paul Babiak says he’s “not comfortable” with one researcher’s estimate that one in ten executives is a psychopath,
but he has noticed that they are attracted to positions of power. When he describes employees such as John to other
executives, they know exactly whom he’s talking about. “I was talking to a group of human-resources executives yesterday,”
says Babiak, “and every one of them said, you know, I think I’ve got somebody like that.”
By now, you’re probably thinking the same thing. The number of psychopaths in society is about the same as the number
of schizophrenics, but unlike schizophrenics, psychopaths aren’t loners. That means most of us have met or will meet
one. Hare gets dozens of letters and e-mail messages every month from people who say they recognize someone they know
while reading Without Conscience. They go on to describe a brother, a sister, a husband. ” ‘Please help my seventeen-year-old
son. . . .’ ” Hare reads aloud from one such missive. “It’s a heart-rending letter, but what can I do? I’m not a clinician.
I have hundreds of these things, and some of them are thirty or forty pages long.”
Hare’s book opened my eyes, too. Reading it, I realized that I might have known a psychopath, Jonathan, at the computer
company where I worked in London, England, over twenty years ago. He was charming and confident, and from the moment
he arrived he was on excellent terms with the executive inner circle. Jonathan had big plans and promised me that I
was a big part of them. One night when I was alone in the office, Jonathan appeared, accompanied by what anyone should
have recognized as two prostitutes. “These are two high-ranking staff from the Ministry of Defence,” he said without
missing a beat. “We’re going over the details of a contract, which I’m afraid is classified top secret. You’ll have
to leave the building.” His voice and eyes were absolutely persuasive and I complied. A few weeks later Jonathan was
arrested. He had embezzled tens of thousands of pounds from the small firm, used the company as a mailing address for
a marijuana importing business he was running on the side, and robbed the apartment of the company’s owner, who was
letting him stay there temporarily.
Like everyone who has been suckered by a psychopath — and Bob Hare includes himself and many of his graduate students
(who have been trained to spot them) in that list — I’m ashamed that I fell for Jonathan. But he was brilliant, charismatic,
and audacious. He radiated money and power (though in fact he had neither), while his real self — manipulative, lying,
parasitic, and irresponsible — was just far enough under his surface to be invisible. Or was it? Maybe I didn’t know
how to look, or maybe I didn’t really want to.
I saw his name in the news again recently. “A con man tricked top sports car makers Lotus into lending him a £70,000
model . . . then stole it and drove 6,000 miles across Europe, a court heard,” the story began.
Knowing Jonathan is probably a psychopath makes me feel better. It’s an explanation.
Kouri, who's a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial
charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.
But -- and here's the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion -- these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)
Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same
character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.
Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty
deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.
"This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want," he wrote. "Ironically, these
same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political
officeholders."
Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we're paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our
national treasure in wise ways.
We don't know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements.
On the other hand ...
He adds:
"While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities
with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing
the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government."
-- Andrew Malcolm
We are absolutely not seeking to manipulate Ticket readers by glibly saying with superficial charm that they are
certainly among the world's most intelligent people. Nor do we seek to manipulate every one of them to click here for
Twitter alerts on each new Ticket item. Or follow
Psychopathy is a personality disorder manifested in people who use a mixture of charm, manipulation, intimidation,
and occasionally violence to control others, in order to satisfy their own selfish needs. Although the concept of psychopathy
has been known for centuries, the FBI leads the world in the research effort to develop a series of assessment tools,
to evaluate the personality traits and behaviors attributable to psychopaths.
Interpersonal traits include glibness, superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, and
the manipulation of others. The affective traits include a lack of remorse and/or guilt, shallow affect, a lack of empathy,
and failure to accept responsibility. The lifestyle behaviors include stimulation-seeking behavior, impulsivity, irresponsibility,
parasitic orientation, and a lack of realistic life goals.
Research has demonstrated that in those criminals who are psychopathic, scores vary, ranging from a high degree of
psychopathy to some measure of psychopathy. However, not all violent offenders are psychopaths and not all psychopaths
are violent offenders. If violent offenders are psychopathic, they are able to assault, rape, and murder without concern
for legal, moral, or social consequences. This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want. Ironically, these
same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political
officeholders.
... ... ...
Psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse/guilt
over their crimes. They do possess certain personality traits that can be exploited, particularly their inherent narcissism,
selfishness, and vanity.
... ... ...
While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other
career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials
and lawmakers at all levels of government.
As an Eastern European arriving in the United States initially for college, the corporate culture is even more inexplicable
to me than to someone who lived in its presence from birth. A few years ago I had just a vague belief that “corporations
are where the real economy and culture of America lies.” Right after college I started a job in a medium-sized corporation,
and within weeks I was stunned by the abnormality of its culture.
The company should have been named “the cult of John” since it was a sycophantic cult devoted to its mythical founder.
The ultra-energetic recruitment person stressed to me at the interview that “John is a genius” and my manager found
endless ways to phrase his devotion to “the big man.” The pecking order was painfully enforced with condescending remarks
from superiors to subordinates, and through testosterone-filled meetings among upper management, each eager to outdo
his colleagues with obscenities and back-slapping in front of the father of us all, John.
Work, which should have been plentiful, was forgotten under political moves and revolting inefficiency. My manager
was “protecting us” from a higher-level manager who promised to “make our life hell.” Why, and how, remains a mystery.
An employee from a different department triggered a small-scale war by asking for my help. The manager took each of
his team to his office and individually shouted them into promising “never to help anyone without his consent.”
I quit after realizing that the corporation is a complex game I was not prepared for.
I am young and I moved on, but the corporate world still lingers with me as an awkward absurdity. Inside windowless
cubicles, fear, sycophantism, hypocrisy and selfishness reign free, leaving people both exhausted and humiliated. I
find it perplexing that in a nation that prides itself on dignity and liberty, some employees let such abuses go on
day by day in a “business as usual” manner. I kept hearing “that’s how managers are, you’ve got to let that insult pass
by you” or “you need to pick your battles.” Most upsetting, it seems that almost nobody tries to keep a cool
head when judging corporate culture. The problem is not so much something you can understand by looking at facts and
figures, but by looking at the monsters the corporation creates out of its employees. And in the college medium, opinions
are split between the “lefties,” continuously demonizing corporations to a caricature, and the “econ” students who have
no qualms and expect to pick up the corporate culture “on the fly” in internships and jobs.
The resemblance of corporate culture with Soviet society is shocking. Soviet society too was based on fear, hypocrisy,
double-talk and many lies. The important communist bureaucrats were masters at speaking with a “wooden tongue” — a style
of talking that had no connection with the reality of governing. They were diabolically able to wrap very pragmatic
actions in completely irrelevant Marxist-Leninist talk. The major difference from the corporation is that the generations
formed in communist times are extremely cynical and bitter, while corporate U.S. keeps pushing credulity, self-blame
and “a positive attitude.” Just like communism, the corporate workplace culture refuses to be aware of itself. It wraps
a simple and pragmatic set of actions with a complex and irrelevant set of behaviors and justifications, all the while
somehow mysteriously passing on the management wisdom over the years.
I have a message to add to my complaints: if you have to work in such a medium, always try to understand what is
really happening around you. It is better to be aware of an unpleasant reality than to let your gullibility and insecurities
make a victim of you. Be cynical and allow yourself to see through greed, backstabbing, abuse and absurd speeches. Try
to connect and communicate with people you can trust. Think scientifically — science made the world evolve; cults always
backfired.
wallart:
Daniel, You triggered a few musings:
It occurs to me that your boss might have had psychopathic tendencies. The way he wanted to control your contacts with other employees is a red flag to me.
The management style now in vogue seems to me to more closely resemble totalitarian dictatorship.
With regard to internal economics, however, corporations have always operated in a manner similar to communism,
which makes their genuflections to “free enterprise” seem rather rehearsed.
Trude:
Daniel’s advice in his last paragraph is sound for every aspect of society. I’d say be skeptical rather than
cynical, but the point is nearly the same — don’t “drink the KoolAid” or lose yourself in slavery to somebody else’s
vision of their dream. Keep your own dreams alive. Work is just a place you have sold 40 hours a week to. If your
own dream happens to be one that can turn a profit, start your own company and drink your own KoolAid.
Replace detainer with psychopath: "cooperation is the "end goal" of the detainer, who wants the detainee "to
see that [the detainer] has 'total' control of you because you are completely dependent on him, and thus you must comply
with his wishes. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that you must cooperate with him in some way (propaganda, special
favors, confession, etc.)."
"From the moment you are detained (if some kind of exploitation is your Detainer's goal) everything your Detainer
does will be contrived to bring about these factors: CONTROL, DEPENDENCY, COMPLIANCE AND COOPERATION," Jessen wrote.
"Your detainer will work to take away your sense of control. This will be done mostly by removing external control (i.e.,
sleep, food, communication, personal routines etc. )…Your detainer wants you to feel 'EVERYTHING' is dependent on him,
from the smallest detail, (food, sleep, human interaction), to your release or your very life … Your detainer wants
you to comply with everything he wishes. He will attempt to make everything from personal comfort to your release unavoidably
connected to compliance in your mind."
Jessen wrote that cooperation is the "end goal" of the detainer, who wants the detainee "to
see that [the detainer] has 'total' control of you because you are completely dependent on him, and thus you must comply
with his wishes. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that you must cooperate with him in some way (propaganda,
special favors, confession, etc.)."
Jessen described the kinds of pressures that would be exerted on the prisoner to achieve
this goal, including "fear of the unknown, loss of control, dehumanization, isolation," and use of sensory deprivation
and sensory "flooding." He also included "physical" deprivations in his list of detainer "pressures."
"Unlike everyday experiences, however, as a detainee we could be subjected to stressors/coercive
pressures which we cannot completely control," he wrote. "If these stressors are
manipulated and increased against us, the cumulative effect can push us out of the optimum range of functioning. This
is what the detainer wants, to get us 'off balance.'"
"The Detainer wants us to experience a loss of composure in hopes we can be manipulated
into some kind of collaboration..." Jessen wrote. "This is where you are most vulnerable to exploitation. This is where
you are most likely to make mistakes, show emotions, act impulsively, become discouraged, etc. You are still close enough
to being intact that you would appear convincing and your behavior would appear 'uncoerced.'"
By contrast, in his devastating book and documentary, The Corporation, Canadian law professor Joel Bakan explained
how the business entity termed a ‘corporation’ was legally transformed into a ‘person’ possessing its ‘own identity,
separate from the flesh and blood people who were its owners and managers’. Bakan found that corporate behaviour closely matched the clinical definition of a psychopath,
including: ‘callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, reckless
disregard for the safety of others, deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience
guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law.’ (The Corporation, documentary,
YouTube)
Bakan quoted businessman Robert Monks, who noted that a corporation ‘tends to be more profitable to the extent it can
make other people pay the bills for its impact on society. There’s a terrible word that economists use for this called
“externalities”.’
Monks added:
‘The difficulty with the corporate entity is that it has a dynamic that doesn’t take into account the concerns
of flesh-and-blood human people who form the world in which it exists,’ so that ‘in our search for wealth and prosperity,
we created a thing that’s going to destroy us.’ (Bakan, The Corporation, Constable, 2004, pp. 70-71)
This is a very important observation: psychopath managers typically operate as cult leaders and books about abusive
cults can teach us a lot about how to deal with psychopaths in the office. I highly recommend to read the whole except...
--NNB
What follows below are characteristics of a cult leader. These are given so that the
reader may understand what to look for in patterns of cult leadership. The text was excerpted from chapter five of
Captive
Hearts Captive Minds by Madeline Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich pp. 67-79, and is reprinted with permission of the
author.
Psychopathy and the Characteristics of a Cult Leader
In general, charismatic personalities are known for their inescapable magnetism, their
winning style, the self assurance with which they promote something, a cause, a belief, a product. A
charismatic person who offers hope of new beginnings often attracts attention and a following. Over the years we have
witnessed the likes of this in Dale Carnegie, Werner Erhard (founder of est, now the Forum), John Hanley (founder of
Lifespring), Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi, Shirley MacLaine, John Bradshaw, Marianne Williamson, Ramtha channeler J. Z. Knight,
and a rash of Amway "executives," weight loss program promoters and body building gurus.
One dictionary definition of charisma is "a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm
for a public figure (as a political leader or military commander); a special magnetic charm, or appeal." (5) Charisma
was studied in depth by the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as "an exceptional quality in an individual
who, through appearing to possess supernatural, providential or extraordinary powers, succeeds in gathering disciples
around him."(6)
Weber's charismatic leader was "a sorcerer with an innovative aura and a personal magnetic gift, [who] promoted a
specific doctrine....[and was] concerned with himself rather than involved with others....[He] held an exceptional type
of power: it set aside the usage's of normal political life and assumed instead those of demagoguery, dictatorship,
or revolution, [which induced] men's whole hearted devotion to the charismatic individual through a blind and fanatical
trust and an unrestrained and uncritical faith."(7)
In the case of cults, of course, we know that this induction of whole hearted devotion does not happen spontaneously
but is the result of the cult leader's skillful use of thought-reform techniques. Charisma on it's own is not evil and
does nor necessarily breed a cult leader. Charisma is, however, a powerful and awesome attribute
found in many cult leaders who use it in ways that are both self-serving and destructive to others. The combination
of charisma and psychopathy is a Lethal mixture - perhaps it is the very recipe used at the Cookie-cutter Messiah School!
For the cult leader, having charisma is perhaps most useful during the stage of cult formation. It takes a strong-willed
and persuasive leader to convince people of a new belief, then gather the newly converted around him as devoted followers.
A misinterpretation of the cult leader's personal charisma may also foster his followers' belief in his special or messianic
qualities.
So we see that charisma is indeed a desirable trait for someone who wishes to attract a following. However, like
beauty, charisma is in the eye of the beholder. Mary, for example, may be completely taken with a particular seminar
leader, practically swooning at his every word, while her friend Susie doesn't feel the slightest tingle. Certainly
at the time a person is under the sway of charisma the effect is very real. Yet, in reality, charisma does nothing more
than create a certain worshipful reaction to an idealized figure in the mind of the one who is smitten.
In the long run, skills of persuasion (which may or may not be charismatic) are more important to the cult leader
than charisma -for the power and hold of cults depend on the particular environment shaped
by the thought-reform program and control mechanisms, all of which are usually conceptualized and put in place by the
leader.Thus it is the psychopathology of the leader, not his charisma, that causes the systematic
manipulative abuse and exploitation found in cults.
The Cult Leader as Psychopath
Cultic groups and relationships are formed primarily to meet specific emotional needs of the leader, many of whom
suffer from one or another emotional or character disorder. Few, if any, cult leaders subject themselves to the psychological
tests or prolonged clinical interviews that allow for an accurate diagnosis. However, researchers and clinicians who
have observed these individuals describe them variously as neurotic, psychotic, on a spectrum exhibiting neurotic, sociopathic,
and psychotic characteristics, or suffering from a diagnosed personality disorder.
It is not our intent here to make an overarching diagnosis, nor do we intend to imply that all cult leaders or the
leaders of any of the groups mentioned here are psychopaths. In reviewing the data, however, we can surmise that there
is significant psychological dysfunctioning in some cult leaders and that their behavior demonstrates features rather
consistent with the disorder known as psychopathy.
Dr. Robert Hare, one of the world's foremost experts in the field, estimates that there are at least two million
psychopaths in North America. He writes, "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow
their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely
lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating
social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret."
Psychopathy falls within the section on personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, which is the standard source book used in making psychiatric evaluations and diagnoses. In the draft
version of the manual's 4th edition (to be released Spring 1994), this disorder is listed as "personality disorder not
otherwise specified/ Cleckley-type psychopath," named after psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley who carried out the first major
studies of psychopaths. The combination of personality and behavioral traits that allows for this diagnosis must be
evident in the person's history, not simply apparent during a particular episode. That is, psychopathy is a long-term
personality disorder. The term psychopath is often used interchangeably with sociopath, or sociopathic personality.
Because it is more commonly recognized, we use the term psychopath here.
Personality disorders, as a diagnosis, relate to certain inflexible and maladaptive behaviors
and traits that cause a person to have significantly impaired social or occupational functioning. Signs of
this are often first manifested in childhood and adolescence, and are expressed through distorted patterns of perceiving,
relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself. In simple terms this means that something is amiss, awry,
not quite right in the person, and this creates problems in how he or she relates to the rest of the world.
The psychopathic personality is sometimes confused with the "antisocial personality," another disorder; however,
the psychopath exhibits more extreme behavior than the antisocial personality. The antisocial personality is identified
by a mix of antisocial and criminal behaviors--he is the common criminal. The psychopath, on the other hand, is characterized
by a mix of criminal and socially deviant behavior.
Psychopathy is not the same as psychosis either. The latter is characterized by an inability to differentiate
what is real from what is imagined boundaries between self and others are lost, and critical thinking is greatly impaired.
While generally not psychotic, cult leaders may experience psychotic episodes, which may lead to the destruction of
themselves or the group. An extreme example of this is the mass murder-suicide that occurred in November 1978 in Jonestown,
Guyana, at the People's Temple led by Jim Jones. On his orders, over 900 men, women, and children perished as Jones
deteriorated into what was probably a paranoid psychosis. The psychopathic personality has been well described by Hervey
Cleckley in his classic work, The "Mask of Sanity", first published in 1941 and updated and reissued in 1982.
Cleckley is perhaps best known for his "The Three Faces of Eve", a book and later a popular movie on multiple personality.
Cleckley also gave the world a detailed study of the personality and behavior of the psychopath, listing 16 characteristics
to be used in evaluating and treating psychopaths. Cleckley's work greatly influenced 20 years of research carried out
by Robert Hare at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. In his work developing reliable and valid procedures
for assessing psychopathy, Hare made several revisions in Cleckley's list of traits and finally settled on a 20-item
Psychopathy Checklist. Later in this chapter we will use an adaptation of both the Cleckley and Hare checklists to examine
the profile of a cult leader.
Neuropsychiatrist Richard M. Restak stated, "At the heart of the diagnosis of psychopathy
was the recognition that a person could appear normal and yet close observation would reveal the personality to be irrational
or even violent". Indeed, initially most psychopaths appear quite normal. They present themselves to us as
charming, interesting, even humble. The majority "don't suffer from delusions, hallucinations, or memory impairment,
their contract with reality appears solid." Some, on the other hand, may demonstrate marked paranoia and megalomania.
In one clinical study of psychopathic inpatients, the authors wrote "We found that our psychopaths were similar to normals
(in the reference group) with regard to their capacity to experience external events as real and with regard to their
sense of bodily reality. They generally had good memory, concentration, attention, and language function. They had a
high barrier against external, aversive stimulation....In some ways they clearly resemble normal people and can thus
'pass' as reasonably normal or sane. Yet we found them to be extremely primitive in other ways, even more primitive
than frankly schizophrenic patients. In some ways their thinking was sane and reasonable, but in others it was psychotically
inefficient and/or convoluted."
Another researcher described psychopaths in this way These people are impulsive, unable to tolerate frustration and
delay, and have problems with trusting. They take a paranoid position or externalize their emotional experience. They
have little ability to form a working alliance and a poor capacity for self-observation. Their anger is frightening.
Frequently they take flight. Their relations with others are highly problematic. When close to another person they fear
engulfment or fusion or loss of self. At the same time, paradoxically, they desire closeness; frustration of their entitled
wishes to be nourished, cared for, and assisted often leads to rage. They are capable of a child's primitive fury enacted
with an adult's physical capabilities, and action is always in the offing." Ultimately, "the psychopath must have what
he wants, no matter what the cost to those in his way."
The Master Manipulator
Let us look for a moment at how some of this manifests in the cult leader. Cult leaders have an outstanding ability
to charm and win over followers. They beguile and seduce. They enter a room and garner all the attention. They command
the utmost respect and obedience. These are "individuals whose narcissism is so extreme and grandiose that they exist
in a land of splendid isolation in which the creation of the grandiose self takes precedence over legal, moral or interpersonal
commitments."
Paranoia may be evident in simple or elaborate delusions of persecution. Highly suspicious, they may feel conspired
against, spied upon or cheated, or maligned by a person, group, or governmental agency. Any real or suspected unfavorable
reaction may be interpreted as a deliberate attack upon them or the group. (Considering the criminal nature of some
groups and the and social behavior of others, some of these fears may have more of a basis in reality than delusion!)
Harder to evaluate, of course, is whether these leaders' belief in their magical powers, omnipotence, and connection
to God (or whatever higher power or belief system they are espousing) is delusional or simply part of the con. Megalomania--the
belief that one is able or entitled to rule the world--is equally hard to evaluate without psychological testing of
the individual, although numerous cult leaders state quite readily that their goal is to rule the world. In any case,
beneath the surface gloss of intelligence, charm, and professed humility seethes an inner world of rage, depression,
and fear.
Two writers on the subject used the label 'Trust Bandit' to describe the psychopathic personality.
Trust Bandit is indeed an apt description of this thief of our hearts, souls, minds, bodies, and pocketbooks. Since
a significant percentage of current and former cult members have been in more than one cultic group or relationship,
learning to recognize the personality style of the Trust Bandit can be a useful antidote to further abuse.
Psychopaths, also called sociopaths, are categorized as those who exhibit superficial charm and intelligence, and
are absent of delusions or nervousness. Their traits include:
Unreliability
Frequent lying
Deceitful and manipulative behavior (either goal-oriented or for the delight of the act itself)
Lack of remorse or shame
Antisocial behavior
Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience
Incapacity for love
Poverty of general emotions
Loss of insight
Unresponsiveness in personal relations
A frequent need for excitement
An inflated self-worth
An ability to rationalize their behavior
A need for complete power
A need to dominate others
Psychopathy is basically an emotional disorder. The book, The Psychopath, by James Blair, Karina Blair, and Derek
Mitchell, states, "The crucial aspect of psychopathy is ... the emotional impairment." According to Dr. J. Reid Meloy's
book, The Psychopathic Mind, although psychopaths don't feel emotion in a normal sense, they do experience boredom,
envy, exhilaration, contempt, sadistic pleasure, anger, and hints of depression.
Generally, those who believe it's caused by environmental factors use the term sociopath, and believers of the biological
theory use the term psychopath. Psychopathy closely resembles Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD or APD) or Conduct
Disorder (CD) as outlined in the DSM-IV. These disorders are detected using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revisited (PCL-R),
the DSM-IV, and other diagnostics.
These character types, comprise about 4% of the population and span every level of society. Psychopaths can be found
in every race, culture, profession and class. Because the term psychopath has been used to describe APD types and sociopaths,
in this chapter I'll use it as a universal label for these three character types.
Later when I'm explaining how psychopaths always mask themselves when seeking positions of power, it will help to
remember the following: If a rational person tries to apply their logic while trying to understand the reason for an
objective or act of a psychopath, they will fail. This will be explained in more detail later. Likewise, when a rational
person hears of the possibility that a massive lie has been told to a population by a trusted leader, and they attempt
to use their logic to determine weather or not such a lie is possible, they will usually not believe the truth (that
they have fallen for a huge lie).
The reason for this is that although most of us can identify with small lies, we find it difficult to conclude that
such a massive lie is possible. When I use the term massive lie, I don't just mean a complete
falsehood regarding a major event, but also the scope of its influence (global) and the amount of people that have fallen
for it.
In his book, The Mask of Sanity, Dr. Hervey Cleckley, says that even during the most "solemn perjuries" they show
"no difficulty at all in looking anyone tranquilly in the eyes." He adds that that they will
"lie about any matter, under any circumstances." He explains that it is difficult to express how completely
straightforward they appear when telling a blatant lie.
"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
-Adolph Hitler
"Lying, deceiving, and manipulation are natural talents for psychopaths," agreed
Dr. Robert Hare, in his book, Without Conscience. "When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom
perplexed or embarrassed--they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be
consistent with the lie."
Psychopaths are always able to justify their actions, no matter how brutal. They have, "an ability to rationalize
their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable, and justified," says Dr. Cleckley. Dr. Hare added, "Psychopaths
show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely
forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, [and] are not sorry for the pain and destruction
they have caused," which, says Dr. Hare, "is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior."Psychopathy
is usually untreatable. Most therapists won't work with them because they often end up damaged in the process. Dr. Hare
explained, "Such counseling would be wasted on psychopaths." Some of them will even reflect the wishes of the therapist
and pretend to be getting better.
In his book, People of The Lie, psychiatrist Dr. Scott Peck had this to say: "Among themselves therapists will not
infrequently refer to a patient's psychopathology as being 'overwhelming.' We mean this literally. We literally feel
overwhelmed by the labyrinthine mass of lies and twisted motives ... into which we will be drawn if we attempt to work
with such people..."
Wikipedia describes that, "traditional therapeutic approaches actually make them, if not worse, then far more adept
at manipulating others and concealing their behavior. They are generally considered to be not only incurable but also
untreatable." Basically psychopaths are the way they are for life. In most legal jurisdictions they are considered sane.
So technically, they're not mentally ill, just different.
Dr. Scott Peck concludes, "I have learned nothing in twenty years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly
influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond," he says, "to either gentle kindness or any form
of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar with."
Where Are They?
When people hear the word psychopath, most think of the famous serial killers locked away in prison. However, most
don't end up in prison or mental hospitals. Dr. Cleckley wrote, "The true difference between them and the psychopaths
who continually go to jails or to psychiatric hospitals is that they keep up a far better and more consistent outward
appearance of being normal."
"This outward appearance," says Dr. Cleckley, is essentially a mask, which,
"may include business or professional careers that continue in a sense successful, and which
are truly successful when measured by financial reward or by the casual observer's opinion of real accomplishment."
"Many psychopaths never go to prison or any other facility," agreed Dr. Hare. "They appear to function reasonably
well--as lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, mercenaries, police officers, cult leaders, military personnel,
business people, writers, artists, entertainers, and so fourth--without breaking the law." He continued,
"Their intelligence, family background, social skills, and circumstances permit them to construct
a facade of normalcy."
"Corrupt and callous politicians, social or career fast climbers, authoritarian leaders, abusing and aggressive persons,
etc., are among them" wrote Dr. Renato Sabbatini in his article, The Psychopath's Brain. "A
common characteristic," says Dr. Sabbatini, "is that they engage systematically
in deception and manipulation of others for personal gain. In fact, many successful and adapted non-violent sociopaths
can be found in our society."
Most of these people are not just right in your churches, schools, charitable organizations, and workplaces, but
by their very nature, they are likely running them. It is a core trait of the psychopath to place themselves in positions
of influence, not for public service, but for power. "The experience of pleasure is not reciprocal for the psychopath,"
stated Dr. Meloy, "it is available only through sadistic channels of power and control." Achieving power for the sake
of having power is the nature of the psychopath. "They love to have power and control over others," agreed Dr. Hare.
The need for absolute power over others and the wish to inflict pain for the enjoyment of watching others suffer,
are almost never apparent to the casual observer. The reason for this is that another core trait of the psychopath is
disguise. So unfortunately, these individuals usually mask themselves as good-natured people. If they have tremendous
wealth, you can bet that they'll create charitable organizations as part of their mask.
They are well aware that their mental makeup is drastically different from the majority. They have a sixth sense
for detecting and exploiting any weakness you may have. At a very early age they learn that they can inflict mental
and emotional harm on others with ease. They also learn how to detect others like themselves out of a crowd of normal
people. Beginning in their childhood, most of them learn to mimic normal emotional reactions in order to blend in with
society.
An article on Dr. Hare's website called, Psychopaths Among Us, by Robert Hercz, describes how Dr. Hare was contacted
by Nicole Kidman, who wanted his advice on how to play the part of a psychopath for her film, Malice. Dr. Hare uses
the anecdote of a psychopath who had just witnessed an accident where a mother watched her child get killed by a car.
There's blood all over the place, and the psychopath experiences no emotion, but instead, is trying to avoid getting
blood on her shoes. The psychopath notices the mother's emotional reaction to the accident and is fascinated. She goes
home, looks in the mirror, and begins to mimic the facial expressions of the mother. "That's the psychopath," revealed
Dr. Hare.
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, states that, "any emotions which the primary psychopath exhibits are the fruits
of watching and mimicking other people's emotions." They are adept at, "using their charm and chameleonlike abilities
to cut a wide swath through society and leaving a wake of ruined lives behind them," Dr. Hare warns.
"More often than not," says Dr. Cleckley, "the typical psychopath will seem particularly
agreeable and make a distinctly positive impression when he is first encountered.Alert and friendly in his attitude, he is easy to talk with and seems to have a good many genuine interests.
There is nothing at all odd or queer about him, and in every respect he tends to embody the concept of a well-adjusted,
happy person."
"Psychopaths are often witty and articulate," concurred Dr. Hare. "They can be amusing and
entertaining conversationalists, ready with quick and clever comeback, and can tell unlikely but convincing stories
that cast themselves in a good light. They can be very effective in presenting themselves well and are often very likable
and charming."
Remember, most of them don't psychically hurt people, so this is about mental and emotional
domination. To accomplish these objectives, they will use their mask of sanity to place themselves in positions
within your community. These positions may include school boards, charitable organizations, churches, politics, law
enforcement, or any position which they believe will offer them power over others. These are the places where most psychopaths
end up, not jail.
One out of every 25 has no conscience or sense of right or wrong. What to do when you work with one.
Evil in the office. If you think about it, you'll probably realize you've seen it play out at least once in your career.
All of a sudden a well-running, friendly, effective group or company begins to disintegrate for no apparent reason.
People start to become demoralized and dysfunctional, efficiency plummets, client service and sales suffer and convoluted
mistakes are made, up to and including illegal behavior such as fraud and larceny. Employees begin to develop psychosomatic
illnesses, sick time rises and the best talent starts to leave.
What used to be a great work situation turns into a nightmare.
More often than not this dysfunction can be traced to the entry of one new employee, perhaps the boss, his or his
assistant, the head of HR or a new shop steward. And when you start to explore, you find that, though the person may
look and act apparently normal -- even charming -- all those around him or her are suffering.
Four percent of the global population is made up of sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout, psychologist and clinical instructor
in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, tells us
in her book The Sociopath Next Door. That means one out of every 25 human beings has no conscience, no sense
of right or wrong, no empathy, no ability to understand emotion--no soul. Worse, while they
can mimic emotion, they see other humans as mere pawns or saps, to be used for their benefit or amusement, or both.
Add that to the fact that science now is questioning whether there is any difference at all between sociopaths and
psychopaths, and that those with narcissistic
personality disorder also have some of the same characteristics (an inability to care about anyone but themselves),
it means that "evil" is all around us, even at work.
Extreme intimidation of others, especially behind closed doors
Impulsive behavior
Manipulative and controlling
Self-obsessed
Lack of remorse, and even apparent satisfaction or pleasure, after harming others
Yes? Then you possibly have been, or currently are, working with a corporate psychopath.
Contrary to popular perception, psychopathology is not always about murderousness. It
is defined broadly as 'callous behavior without normal feelings of empathy or guilt'. And there's a surprising
amount of it about.
According to a recent report on the ABC's Catalyst program, one woman in 200 is classifiable
as a psychopath, as is one man out of every 50 - overall, approximately one person in 80. This means that every large
organisation has several of them; chances are, you have several psychopaths in your building.
Worse, many companies are unwittingly selecting in favour of psychopathology, especially
when recruiting executives. Their charm, fearlessness and "whatever it takes" attitude can win over even
experienced interviewers, and with rapid job turnover they can march up the ranks at great speed.
Consequently, the chance of psychopaths holding senior positions in industry and government is disquietingly high.
We only have to consider the great wars of history, acts of national aggression in our own lifetimes, and examples of
extraordinary corporate self-interest, to see the power of the pathology that we have allowed to slip past the sentries.
Criminals in neckties.
“We should recognize that what the creditor class wants is what they’ve always wanted: total dominance of
our culture.”
Going on from there what we must recognize is that the proper clinical description, or, rather, diagnosis for
those who seek total dominance of others is sociopath. There really is no treatment for such a severe condition,
and, therefore, the only effective response entails stern measures.
Psychoanalystus:
Edwardo,
As a shrink with considerable forensic experience, I agree with your statement that there is no treatment for
sociopathy. If anything, treatment is highly discouraged, as it only teaches them how to be even better criminals.
Sociopaths are not human beings, as they lack a conscience or basic human emotions such as empathy.
As such, the only 2 options we have when dealing with sociopaths:
(1) containment, which means putting them in prison for the rest of their lives with no possibility of release,
or
(2) destruction, which can be accomplished via a number of ways, such as public lynching or giving them the death
penalty in a speedy, followed by immediate execution.
Borne out of a quest to understand her sister Carolyn's lifelong sinister behavior (which, systems engineer Oakley
suggests, may have been compounded by childhood polio), the author sets out on an exploration of evil, or Machiavellian,
individuals. Drawing on the advances in brain imaging that have illuminated the relationship of emotions, genetics and
the brain (with accompanying imaging scans), Oakley collects detailed case histories of famed evil geniuses such as
Slobodan Milosevic and Mao Zedong, interspersed with a memoir of Carolyn's life. Oakley posits that they all had borderline
personality disorder or antisocial personality disorder, a claim she supports with evidence from scientists' genetic
and neurological research.
All the people she considers, Oakley notes, are charming on the surface but capable of deeply malign behavior
(traits similar to those found in some personality disorders), and her analysis attributes these traits to narcissism
combined with cognitive and emotional disturbances that lead them to believe they are behaving in a genuinely altruistic
way. Disturbing, for sure, but with her own personal story informing her study, Oakley offers an accessible account
of a group of psychiatric disorders and those affected by them.
Gadget Hound
This is a terrific book on the brain's organization, where genes fit into the picture of psychopathology, and
a personal story to knit it all together. Probably the best I've ever found, and it reflects the state-of-the-art
in it's subject matter.
This is a technical book written almost as a novel - just a wonderful read for those who would otherwise never
bother with a real medical book. If you're interested in any of the above, then this is the book for you. There
are also YouTube videos of the author giving talks at book signings, etc., which are very interesting and can serve
as an introduction to the book.
In addition, here are some articles, etc., by Barbara Oakley which should be of considerable interest to anyone
purchasing this excellent book:
1. "The Killer in the Lecture Hall," Op-Ed for New York Times, April 19th, 2007, republished in The International
Herald Tribune and many other papers worldwide.
2. "The Devil Inside," by Barbara Oakley, The Times Higher Education Supplement, pp 18-19, November 30th, 2007.
Invited article.
3. "A world afflicted with blind spots," by Barbara Oakley, op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, December 6, 2007.
4. "On Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Atlas Shrugged," by Barbara Oakley, Normblog, (one of the most popular blogs
in England). Invited article. (Discusses Rand's work using neuroscientific findings.)
cassdog (Gainesville, Fl USA): Illuminating look at some sinister characters in all of our lives, (October
10, 2009)
This author does what a good popular science writer should do. She discusses a large amount of cutting edge science
in a manner that an educated reader can understand while providing context to the science through discussions of
history, politics and even family relations. The result of this recipe is a thoroughly enjoyable and mesmerizing
book that teachers the reader something new.
While I found her discussion of the history of Machiavellian research fascinating and the historical examples
of Mao, Milosevic, Hitler and Stalin illuminating, the book hit close to home when she discussed the sub-clinical
Machiavellian's that we all have to interact with.
Often these people are very successful and quite friendly but underneath the surface there is a more sinister
programming going on. This sinister program has stayed in the gene pool, because at low-levels of the population,
these social cheaters could have their way without fear of reciprocation.
In our anonymous urban societies, these personalities can flourish much stronger than in our historical evolution,
when maintaining the trust of your social group was literally a matter of life and death.
It is in these sections where I could make sense of some people that I have met in my life and prepare for dealing
with them in the future. In a sense this is the journey that the author went through. It appears that she had an
overpowering urge to understand the source of her sister's troubled behavior. Along the way, she uncovered some
very interesting facts and the readers get to enjoy the results.
Craig Hyatt: A+ for Oakley's Evil Genes, (October 8, 2009)
This review is from: Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
(Paperback) I give Evil Genes an A+. First off, forget the whole nature-versus-nurture debate and all the baggage
about eugenics and whatnot: that's just not the *point* of this book. Oakley isn't preaching here, she's presenting
the reasonable point of view that inheritable faults in brain development can, together with environmental influences,
result in personality disorders and other processing problems that may, in turn, lead to inexplicably and gratuitously
evil and destructive behavior.
However, I read the book cover to cover, and I never got the impression she was making the case that there's
a "schizophrenia gene" or a "rapist gene" or anything like that, and I certainly didn't get the feeling she was
arguing that we ought to excuse criminal behavior because "my evil genes made me do it."
What Oakley does is present a well-founded case that genes and combinations of genes can ultimately cause brains
to get wired wrong or to develop chemical imbalances that result in faulty processing. Oakley's case seems reasonable
to me. If you pick up Gray's Anatomy, you see there are loads of physical variations in the construction of our
bodies... an extra bone here... an extra nerve or artery there... and I see no reason why brain construction shouldn't
have similar physical and chemical variations resulting in a spectrum of psychological dispositions. Oakley isn't
writing a PhD thesis here. What she's doing is mixing a goodish dose of interesting and accessible science with
some fascinating inside stuff about public menaces interwoven with Oakley's memories of the trail of destruction
left by her own erratic older sister Carolyn. I just couldn't put the book down. Here are a few random sentences
on pages I dog eared (some of these are from sources, not Oakley herself):
Indeed, psychopaths know intellectually what is immoral -- they just don't have a feeling of immorality
about it.
The hypothalamus controls the "four F's": 1. fighting, 2. fleeing, 3. feeding; and 4. mating.
I've learned one of the most valuable lessons I could ever learn -- that deep-rooted emotional reasoning
can often trump logic.
Densely populated areas, apparently, are the equivalent for psychopaths of ponds and puddles for malarial
mosquitoes.
"Gaslighting" involves the denial of a borderline... that certain events occurred or certain things were
said. The borderline may deny another person's perceptions, memory, or very sanity.
If my review didn't convince you, sample the front matter and first chapter. You won't be able to put the book
down. I promise.
Sacramento Book Review: Vampires are Real, July 19, 2009
By employing the destructive, exploitative life of her own sibling, Dr. Oakley has personalized a "plot" for
her exploration of dangerous mentalities. Mao, Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Mugabe, Papa Doc Duvalier, Castro, Hitler--all
self-serving, manipulative, and deceitful minds who slew without conscience, disregarded the suffering of and were
obsessed with control over others--all, we learn, were Borderline personalities. In perhaps similarly motivated
economically murderous careers are Ken Lay, Bernard Madoff, and their ilk.
Perhaps because she is so thorough in covering the associated psychopathologies and neural malfunctions that
create or facilitate Borderlines, this delving into a fearful subject was as entertaining to read as top-flight
fiction. Most valuable, perhaps, are the insights and diagnostic tools that may empower the reader to recognize
Machiavellian personalities in public and corporate life.
Vampire Alert! Personalities that on a tribal level would be shunned or culled, wield immensely dangerous charm
and emotionally detached power to harm in an urban, large corporate, or national political milieu. And one of the
symptoms of Borderlines is differential reproduction. They are among us, and their numbers are growing!
Sympathetically written, awesomely erudite, with humour and a wide array of the author's personal adventures
and achievements to enrich it, this is a book I will reread many times.
We have all heard these phrases before. “Violent psychopath” (21,700). “Psychopathic serial killer” (14,700). “Psychopathic
murderer” (12,500). “Deranged psychopath” (1,050). The number of Google hits following them in parentheses attests to
their currency in popular culture. Yet as we will soon discover, each phrase embodies a widespread misconception regarding
psychopathic personality, often called psychopathy (pronounced “sigh-COP-athee”) or sociopathy. Indeed, few disorders
are as misunderstood as is psychopathic personality. In this column, we will do our best to set the record straight
and dispel popular myths about this condition.
Charming but Callous
First described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941, psychopathy
consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good
first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest
and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun
of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships.
Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead.
They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.
Not surprisingly, psychopaths are overrepresented in prisons; studies indicate that about
25 percent of inmates meet diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. Nevertheless, research also suggests
that a sizable number are represented in everyday life. Some investigators have even speculated that “successful
psychopaths”—those who attain prominent positions in society—may be overrepresented in certain occupations, such as
politics, business and entertainment. Yet the scientific evidence for this intriguing conjecture is preliminary.
Most psychopaths are male, although the reasons for this sex difference are unknown. Psychopathy seems to be present
in both Western and non-Western cultures, including those that have had minimal exposure to media portrayals of the
condition. In a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of
Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe “a man who … repeatedly lies
and cheats and steals things and … takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands
and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically
do with a kunlangeta, he replied, “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”
The best-established measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), developed by University of
British Columbia psychologist Robert D. Hare, requires a standardized interview with subjects and an examination of
their file records, such as their criminal and educational histories. Analyses of the PCL-R reveal that it comprises
at least three overlapping, but separable, constellations of traits:
interpersonal deficits (such as grandiosity, arrogance and deceitfulness),
affective deficits (lack of guilt and empathy, for instance),
and impulsive and criminal behaviors (including sexual promiscuity and stealing).
Three Myths
Despite substantial research over the past several decades, popular misperceptions surrounding
psychopathy persist. Here we will consider three of them.
All psychopaths are violent. Research by psychologists such as Randall T. Salekin, now at the University
of Alabama, indicates that psychopathy is a risk factor for future physical and sexual violence. Moreover, at least
some serial killers—for example, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and Dennis Rader, the infamous “BTK” (Bind, Torture,
Kill) murderer—have manifested numerous psychopathic traits, including superficial charm and a profound absence
of guilt and empathy.
Nevertheless, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent people are not psychopaths.
In the days following the horrific Virginia Tech shootings of April 16, 2007, many newspaper commentators described
the killer, Seung-Hui Cho, as “psychopathic.” Yet Cho exhibited few traits of psychopathy: those who knew him described
him as markedly shy, withdrawn and peculiar.
Regrettably, the current (fourth, revised) edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), published in 2000, only reinforces the confusion between psychopathy
and violence. It describes a condition termed antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is characterized by
a longstanding history of criminal and often physically aggressive behavior, referring to it as synonymous with
psychopathy. Yet research demonstrates that measures of psychopathy and ASPD overlap only moderately.
All psychopaths are psychotic. In contrast to people with psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia,
who often lose contact with reality, psychopaths are almost always rational. They are well aware that their ill-advised
or illegal actions are wrong in the eyes of society but shrug off these concerns with startling nonchalance.
Some
notorious serial killers referred to by the media as psychopathic, such as Charles Manson and David Berkowitz, have
displayed pronounced features of psychosis rather than psychopathy. For example, Manson claimed to be the reincarnation
of Jesus Christ, and Berkowitz believed he was receiving commands from his neighbor Sam Carr’s dog (hence his adopted
nickname “Son of Sam”). In contrast, psychopaths are rarely psychotic.
Psychopathy is untreatable. In the popular HBO series The Sopranos, the therapist (Dr. Melfi) terminated
psychotherapy with Tony Soprano because her friend and fellow psychologist persuaded her that Tony, whom Dr. Melfi
concluded was a classic psychopath, was untreatable. Aside from the fact that Tony exhibited several behaviors that
are decidedly nonpsychopathic (such as his loyalty to his family and emotional attachment to a group of ducks that
had made his swimming pool their home), Dr. Melfi’s pessimism may have been unwarranted. Although psychopaths are
often unmotivated to seek treatment, research by psychologist Jennifer Skeem of the University of California, Irvine,
and her colleagues suggests that psychopaths may benefit as much as nonpsychopaths from psychological treatment.
Even if the core personality traits of psychopaths are exceedingly difficult to change, their criminal behaviors
may prove more amenable to treatment.
Psychopathy reminds us that media depictions of mental illness often contain as much fiction as fact. Moreover, widespread
misunderstandings of such ailments can produce unfortunate consequences—as Tony Soprano discovered shortly before the
television screen went blank.
I applaud your thoughtful consideration of an often misunderstood set of behavioral symptoms. However, there
has historically been recognized a clinical differentiation between sociopathy (characterized by superficial charm,
narcissism, and a lack of empathy) and the more problematic psychopathy (characterized by the aforementioned symptoms,
plus aggressive and predatory behavior). Unfortunately, such a distinction has been ostensibly lost in recent clinical
training. This distinction among antisocial presentations is important to acknowledge. Whereas sociopathy may not
be recognized in many individuals, psychopathy can be expected to certainly take a larger societal toll.
Dr Kaufman brings up a useful distinction in understanding the causes of such behavior.
Poor impulse control combined with inadequate self esteem or lower social standing is enough to create sociopathic
behavior. Whereas, the sociopath response is more grounded in reality of their social standing and
past history the psychopath creates greater perceived threats through imagination - hence the greater violence.
AnnieUK :
I am the mother of a 20 year old psychopath. Living with this kind of behavior has all but destroyed me and the
family bonds are very strained. It is not an easy thing to handle, and I suppose admit to, and the family has taken
all of 20 years to listen to me. Now they have all finally woken up and are paying attention. Trying to keep everyone
talking while trying to keep him alive because of his total lack of remorse or fear, is a full time job.
Ripon :
I understand, but you as a mother have reached the first level of understanding " Recognition of the Psychopath".
What ever has happened in the past can now be viewed thru clear eye's.
Generally, the first degree female family members are a big part of the problem, by choosing not to see the problem,
making excuse's and arguing with everyone that recognizes the Psychopath for who and what they are, unfeeling manipulators
of everyone they come in contact with in their day to day life. If you have openly addressed the problem with your
son, with other family members present, that you have started to really address the problem child or bad seed.
Anything less than a direct approach is a waste of time, and still without resolve by you , there is no good
answer. The Psychopath must have a victim at all times, other wise they are not happy, with themselves.
When they are unhappy and not manipulating someone, they will begin to ask or question themselves , and possibly
but not likely to seek help. The critical point is to warn off victims before they can totally become victimized.
Dr. Kaufman, narcissistic personality features and lack of empathy in particular
are what would facilitate aggressive and predatory behavior. In serial domestic abusers, I have found
that with the exception of cases where delusional or psychotic symptoms were seen, at least three of thefive following characteristics were almost invariably present:
self-centeredness,
lack of empathy,
exaggerated sense of entitlement,
jealousy,
and an inability to accept responsibility for one's actions.
Those traits facilitate aggression, abuse, exploitation, and deception.
The so-called distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy is ridiculous and based on absolutely nothing of
substance. The same could be said of so-called secondary psychopathy because such people are merely products of
their environment and do not necessarily suffer from a psychological disorder, whereas psychopaths (real ones) have
differences in how their brains process information that could only be hereditary.
I believe my husband is a psychopath. He angers very easily, for the simplest reasons.
He has been in numerous relationships. He only can stay committed to a person no longer than eight years, and he
then becomes bored. He lies about everything, I can't tell when he is truthful or not.
I've constantly found condoms or phone numbers of various women. His reply is that these are his friends. It seems
he looks for certain women that will further his social or economical status.
I am a school teacher, and for some reason he targeted me. I believe he assumed that I had more financial security.
My previous husband was financial secure, which enabled me to do more with my own money. Everything that we own,
I have purchased it in my name. I feel that when the relationship has not reached the financial status he desires,
he looks for another one to put him in that status. I am very angry for being used and not loved. I feel that he
is a great manipulator! Do you have any advice
Neuroscientists are discovering that some of the most cold-blooded killers aren't bad. They suffer from a brain
abnormality that sets them adrift in an emotionless world
The word “psychopath” conjures up movie images of brutal, inexplicable violence: Jack Nicholson chasing his family
with an ax in The Shining or Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, his face locked into an armored mask to keep him from
biting people to death. But real life offers another set of images, that of killers making nice: Ted Bundy as law student
and aide to the governor of Washington State, and John Wayne Gacy as the Junior Chamber of Commerce’s “Man of the Year.”
Psychopaths are likable guys when they want to be.
Between the two of us, we have interviewed hundreds of prison inmates to assess their
mental health. We are trained in spotting
psychopaths, but even so, coming face to face with the real article can be electrifying, if also unsettling. One
of the most striking peculiarities of psychopaths is that they lack empathy; they are able to shake off as mere tinsel
the most universal social obligations. They lie and manipulate yet feel no compunction or regrets — in fact, they don’t
feel particularly deeply about anything at all.
When soldiers commit atrocities, we must ask why. The question is being raised once again by reports that a handful
of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan carried out premeditated killings—murders—of Afghan civilians. The soldiers allegedly
took photographs of themselves posing with corpses and body parts, including fingers and heads.
The alleged ringleader
is Sergeant Calvin Gibbs. In
an interrogation video
leaked to CNN, Specialist Adam Winfield, a member of Gibbs's platoon, said that Gibbs"likes to kill things.
He is pretty much evil incarnate. I mean, I have never met a man who can go from one minute joking around, then mindless
killings."
Military officials invariably blame these sorts of atrocities on "bad apples." That was the phrase that former Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used to describe American guards accused of abusive behavior at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004.
Some evidence supports the bad-apples theory of atrocities.
In a previous
post, I cited a report by two psychiatrists that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98 percent of World War II
infantrymen suffered from psychiatric illness, with some succumbing to a near-catatonic "vegetative phase." But 2 percent
of the soldiers, far from being traumatized by intense, prolonged combat, enjoyed it. The psychiatrists diagnosed these
soldiers with "aggressive psychopathic personalities."
Dave Grossman, a former professor of psychology at West Point and Army lieutenant colonel, acknowledged in his 1995
book On Killing
(Little, Brown, 1995) that a small number of men—whom he called "the two percent who like it"—can "kill without regret
or remorse." According to Grossman, these men may be excellent soldiers when competently trained and supervised, but
they are also more likely than other men to use excessive force and commit atrocities.
The description above of someone joking one minute and killing the next sounds like textbook psychopathy. In "Inside
the Mind of a Psychopath," in the September/October issue of Scientific AmericanMIND, the neuroscientists
Kent Kiehl and Joshua Buckholtz stated that psychopaths "are guilty of the most erratic and irresponsible, sometimes
destructive and violent behavior," for which they "feel no compunction or regrets." Psychopaths, who comprise as much
as 35 percent of U.S. prisoners, seem incorrigible; they may behave worse after treatments such as group psychotherapy,
Kiehl and Buckholtz said, because "insights into others' vulnerabilities become opportunities to hone their manipulation
skills."
Today, some psychiatrists prefer the terms "sociopathy" or "antisocial personality disorder" to psychopathy. According
to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, antisocial personality disorder is
characterized by extreme aggression, lack of empathy for others, lack of remorse for one's actions—and, not surprisingly,
a propensity for violent crime. The manual estimates that 3 percent of all males have the disorder, which is suggestively
close to the "two percent who like it." The disorder is much less common among women.
A British study of school-age twins
published in 2005 [pdf] suggests that psychopathy has a strong genetic component. Teacher surveys revealed psychopathic
tendencies (including antisocial behavior and "callous-unemotional traits") in 234 children—all less than 10 years old—out
of a total of 3,687 pairs of twins, or roughly 3 percent. If one identical twin was psychopathic, the other was much
more likely to be so; the concordance between fraternal twins was smaller.
In
Final Solutions (Cornell, 2005), the political scientist Benjamin Valentino asserted that small percentages
of men caused much of the slaughter of the 20th century. "The impetus for mass killing usually originates from a relatively
small group of powerful leaders and is often carried out without the active support of broader society," Valentino stated.
This pattern was true of mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, the Balkans, Guatemala and elsewhere.
Similarly, the biologist Barbara Oakley argued in
Evil Genes (Prometheus, 2007) that Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other notorious tyrants displayed symptoms
of psychopathy. Oakley concluded that they were "born to be bad." But in her 1963 essay on the Nuremberg trials, Hannah
Arendt noted that psychiatric evaluations of Nazi mass murderers such as Adolf Eichmann suggested that they were "neither
perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal." Arendt attributed Eichmann's
crimes to "circumstances that make it well-nigh impossible for him to know or feel that he is doing wrong." Arendt was
rejecting the bad-apple theory and blaming "circumstances" for the Holocaust.
This conclusion was corroborated by famous experiments carried out in the 1960s by the psychologist Stanley Milgram.
The son of Jewish immigrants, Milgram devised his experiments in part as a reaction to the Nuremberg trials, which left
him wondering about the motivation of Eichmann and other Nazis. In Milgram's experiments—the details of which are still
chilling—subjects were told that they were participating in a test of another person's learning ability. The "learners"
were actually actors in cahoots with Milgram.
The subject read pairs of words to the learner—who was in an adjoining room and could be heard but not seen by the
subject—and then tested his ability to remember the pairings. Each time the learner failed to remember a pairing, the
scientist, who was in the same room as the subject, ordered him to give the learner a stronger electric shock. As the
shocks increased, the learner reacted with audible distress, crying out in pain, banging on the wall or even claiming
that he was about to have a heart attack. After a certain point, the learner would fall silent.
Of course, the learner was pretending to be shocked. If the subject hesitated to deliver stronger shocks, the scientist
insisted that the subject continue, adding that he would not be held responsible for anything that happened to the learner.
Only if the subject resisted four successive commands from the scientist was the experiment stopped. Otherwise the experiment
continued until the subject had administered a "shock" of 450 volts to the learner.
Before the experiment, Milgram asked several dozen psychiatrists to predict the results; the average guess was that
only 1 percent of the subjects, those with sadistic tendencies, would deliver the strongest shock. But in Milgram's
initial experiment 26 out of 40 subjects, or almost two-thirds, administered what they believed to be the strongest,
life-threatening shock. Only one subject refused to continue the experiment before reaching the 300-volt level. Versions
of Milgram's experiment have been repeated in the U.S. and elsewhere with similar results.
In 1974 Milgram spelled out the implications of his research: "The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost
any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding
explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become
agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently
clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people
have the resources needed to resist authority."
In 1971 the psychologist Philip Zimbardo, Milgram's former classmate at a New York City high school, carried out
the so-called Stanford Prison Experiment, which has become almost as renowned as Milgram's work. Zimbardo created a
mock prison in which Stanford students played the roles of either prisoners or guards. The "guards" quickly became so
abusive—and the "prisoners" so distressed—that Zimbardo had to discontinue the experiment. Some of the guards' abusive
acts—which included forcing prisoners to strip and to engage in simulated homosexual intercourse—were strikingly similar
to acts perpetrated more than three decades later by American soldiers against Iraqis held in the Abu Ghraib prison.
This research suggests that human aggression and cruelty stem less from the "disposition" of individuals than from
their environment, or "situation," Zimbardo argued in
The Lucifer Effect (Random House, 2008). Studies of modern suicide bombers, torturers and war criminals, Zimbardo
wrote, have revealed that many are, in Arendt's words, "terrifyingly normal." People behave badly not because they are
bad apples but because they are in "bad barrels," situations that encourage brutality. War is the ultimate bad barrel.
"In all wars, at all times, in every country, wars transform ordinary, even good men into killers," Zimbardo stated.
In
War of the World: History's Age of Hatred (Penguin, 2007), the British historian Niall Ferguson described how
combatants in World Wars I and II became consumed with hatred for their opponents. As a result, even Americans and British
soldiers, the putative good guys, engaged in escalating atrocities, including bombing civilians, torturing and killing
prisoners and mutilating the dead. This emotion-fueled descent into brutality is an inevitable consequence of the bad
barrel of war.
If genocide, war crimes and other atrocities were all perpetrated by a few bad apples born with bad genes, we could
perhaps identify them through genetic testing and sequester them from the rest of us good, decent, peaceful folk. If
only things were that easy.
Photograph of 1968 massacre in My Lai, Vietnam, courtesy of Wiki Commons
Mims 11:59 AM 10/4/10Also relevant: the 2001 documentary Japanese Devils.
The film is basically about how conditioning soldiers to believe that their opponents are sub-human encourages them
to commit atrocities against their enemies. Some of the accounts (from former soldiers themselves) are truly gruesome.
In the same vein, but involving U.S. soldiers in Vietnam: Winter Soldier
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 2. candide 12:20 PM 10/4/10How about the OBVIOUS: war crimes are caused by ....
WAR.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 3. Chrisstephen 02:29 PM 10/4/10Having reported from numerous wars, I think the
conclusion is spot on. For some soldiers, killing seems to be a pleasure. The vast majority try to balance following
orders with staying alive. In an environment where their job is to kill the enemy and killing is normal, the line between
legitimate and illegitimate killing is blurred. The onus is on the supervising commanders to keep all this in check.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 4. WRQ9 03:36 PM 10/4/10I cannot agree with the findings of tests like the Milgram
test mentioned because, in my experience, it has been under a perceived threat that people behave this way. Most people
will pretend to behave in an acceptable manner no matter how wrong it feels to do so. It is in the presentation of circumstance
that bias is introduced. I do not either believe in the 2%-3% figure involving war criminals, as I believe in the prevalence
of cover up in these circumstances, and the pragmatism of not being found out in general. The 2%to3% represent to me,
a percentage so driven that once they are allowed to commit a murder for example, they are unable to put the genie back
in the bottle. The line must be drawn where no possible repercussions are perceived, as when no witness is available
or such circumstance to provide a true reflection. Many people are secretly glad to be in a unit with a man like Gibbs
because they are allowed to stop pretending and not risk the same level of stigma as the Gibbses. In my informal study
of "sociopathy", it seems like about a third of people have a palpable emotional response, a third have a response and
suppress it, and fully a third have no response at all. These numbers I don't feel vary as much in males to females
as is indicated, but again cultural necessity skews the findings. Although I agree that genetics is a strong predictor
of this tendency, other factors can play a significant role in determining the degree of evidence of such leanings.
Drug abuse childhood abuses and combinations of other extreme circumstances can inspire differences in scale, either
way. I reach these finding by regarding the context and value in circumstance in life to be a constant within the species,
and the perception of equality to be assumed. Cheaters oppress, and the willingness to oppress often reflects sociopathic
tendencies. In fact, the intended suppression of any faction or individual for any cause save the actual greater good
of society, reflects such tendencies. It is the impossibility of proof, given the complexity of human the psyche which
leads us time and time again to the same pitfalls. If these people were so alone in culture, they could hardly be considered
socially driven in any way. Influence is a form of violence to some, and the relative subtlety doesn't change the paradigm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 5. JamesDavis 03:42 PM 10/4/10People like Sergeant Calvin Gibbs are needed in
wars because it is people like them that brings the war to an end. The more cruel the killings, the faster the war ends
or the faster the people give up. You have this in every war because there is a Sergeant Gibbs in every war and Sergeant
Gibbs is born with this trait and it comes to light in war. If there is no war, people like Sgt. Gibbs would more than
likely become a serial killer or an incredible hunter. In war or not in war, these people have to kill the same way
a painter has to paint...they are needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 6. TTLG 04:41 PM 10/4/10I am somewhat skeptical of studies like Milgram's which
rely on the subjects being fooled by actors. My experience is that most people are much better at detecting this sort
of deceit than most actors are are fooling people. For example, just look at how much bad acting there is in Hollywood
movies, which have access to the largest pool of actors in the world. If these guys cannot get believable actors, how
can psych experimenters? I would not be surprised if a significant amount of people's behavior in these experiments
is due to their not entirely believing (either consciously or not) that the situation they are in is real, due to the
behavior of the supposed victim or the person giving them orders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 7. gesimsek 06:20 PM 10/4/10It is an excellent article. Stanford experiment reminds
me fraternity entrance tests. Unfortunately, as long as human beings are raised to prove themselves by inflicting damage
upon themselves and others, this vicious circle will continue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 8. imipak 08:20 PM 10/4/10JamesDavis' view that wars end quickly with extreme
cruelty is the precise opposite of the view held by Sun Tzu who admonished against excess. It is also contrary to the
view of Miyamoto Musashi, who stated that one should never repeat a method, lest it becomes predictable and a weakness.
Since "Art of War" and "Book of Five Rings" are recognized as excellent guides on how to win but no blogger has yet
to achieve such repute, I'll side with expert opinion and say Sergeant Gibbs is not the way to win but is actually the
way to lose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 9. tombaxter 09:18 PM 10/4/10I'd like to think I would not have pull the trigger
like a handful didn't at My Lai. But even if I didn't shoot, I know I would have never reported it as I didn't report
other war crimes I saw. We weren't dealing with people. We were dealing with g**ks and "What is the value of one mere
g**k?" It's the same as a Hajji, etc. I hope I will commit suicide before I become a Kapo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this 10. HoboTraveler.com 01:39 AM 10/5/10I have traveled perpetually for 12 years,
and visited 88 countries. It is normal for me to live with people who speak a different language than me, this is a
more instinctual way of living.
I also observe many tourist and travelers outside the social norms of home.
Yes, for sure 2-3 percent of people feel no guilt.
However, the assumption I feel is wrong, is that we somehow imbue humans with introspection. I do not feel that 50
percent of Humans take the feelings of others into consideration. I believe what we often see as empathy is only a self-serving
desire to get reward from the group.
People generally are cows, with an alpha male instructing them what to do, this idea of morality of the individual
is truly just fear of social norms being enforced and mass confusion causing mental problems. Overwhelming confusion,
incongruence of beliefs to me is mental illness.
People generally do not want to hurt people, but if there is a group desire, or a easy to recognize benefit, with
no danger, they will do so without thought.
Andy Graham of HoboTraveler.com in Cote d'Ivoire, West Africa 2010
It’s approaching happy hour at Chez FT Alphaville, so we hope you don’t mind if we finish the week on a lighter topic
(as
we sometimes do).
We draw your attention to
a recent article about the psychology of power in the pages of our mortal enemy fierce rival formidable competitor
the Wall Street Journal, by science writer Jonah Lehrer.
Lehrer explores a concept called the Paradox of Power, which he summarises thus:
The very traits that helped leaders accumulate control in the first place all but disappear once they rise to
power. Instead of being polite, honest and outgoing, they become impulsive, reckless and rude. In some cases, these
new habits can help a leader be more decisive and single-minded, or more likely to make choices that will be profitable
regardless of their popularity.
One recent study found that overconfident CEOs were more likely to pursue innovation and take their companies
in new technological directions. Unchecked, however, these instincts can lead to a big fall.
We know that Wall Street
has its share of authoritarian bosses. What Lehrer’s article suggests is that
not all of them were quite so accomplished as bastards while still on the way up.
We suppose that’s not really a surprising revelation: power tends to corrupt, etc..
But after discussing the myopia and lack of empathy that overtake people who reach the top of their organisations,
Lehrer relates a suggestion from one psychologist for how this problem might be countered.
There is no easy cure for the paradox of power. Mr. Keltner argues that the best treatment is transparency,
and that the worst abuses of power can be prevented when people know they’re being monitored.
This suggests that the mere existence of a regulatory watchdog or an active board of directors can
help discourage people from doing bad things.
However, people in power tend to reliably overestimate their moral virtue, which leads them to stifle oversight.
They lobby against regulators, and fill corporate boards with their friends. The end result is sometimes power at
its most dangerous.
It’s interesting to think that even if, say, a
newly empowered
regulatory body turns out to be ineffectual, its presence might nevertheless cause executives to be marginally more
virtuous and considerate.
But we would add another point of skepticism to those made by Lehrer. According to the article, people in power only
respect their equals, or other people with similar or higher power. Is it likely that an executive who has succumb to
the worst effects of the paradox will come to view regulators this way?
To know about psychopaths is especially important to 401K investors and, especially, to baby boomers. Such types often
surface in financial scams that target seniors...
Interview with Dr. Robert D. Hare and Dr. Paul Babiak
Not all psychopaths become fraudsters, but some fraudsters are psychopaths. A fraud examiner's job is to help deter
fraud by discretely noticing those employees who might be exhibiting psychopathic tendencies. Psychologists Robert D.
Hare, Ph.D., and Paul Babiak, Ph.D., experts in psychopath studies, explain how these aberrant characters can infect
organizations and provide ways to deal with them.
Sam strode into the lobby of Bacme Manufacturing. Impeccably dressed in a tailored suit, carrying a burnished leather
briefcase, he smiled at the receptionist. "Hello. I'm Sam Smithson, here to see Mr. Tolliver for my second interview."
"Yes, Mr. Smithson. Mr. Tolliver is ready to see you." Eyes turned as Sam walked up the stairs.
"Sam! So good to see you!" "It's great to be here again, Mr. Tolliver!" During the national economic downturn, Bacme
was suffering and needed a few "white knights." Sam had the requisite resume, leadership qualities, and enthusiastic
spirit the company needed to boost morale and the bottom line as a vice president.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tolliver didn't know that Sam was a textbook psychopath. Behind his smile and relaxed manner,
he was dishonest, devious, and manipulative. He pretended to be an empathetic listener, but most of the time he had
only one person on his mind.
Within a year, Sam had ingratiated himself to staffers who could benefit him: top executives but also the "informal
leaders" - middle managers and administrative assistants who got the real work done. Soon he was controlling vast areas
of the company and began embezzling funds. By the time the corporation realized it was missing millions of dollars,
smiling Sam, "the white knight," was on to the next corporation.
Not all psychopaths become fraudsters, but some fraudsters are psychopaths. A fraud examiner's job is to help deter
fraud by discretely noticing those employees who might be exhibiting psychopathic tendencies.
Robert D. Hare, Ph.D. and Paul Babiak, Ph.D., authors of "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work" (available
in the
ACFE Bookstore), have been studying psychopaths and their effects for years. Babiak is an industrial and organizational
psychologist and president of HRBackOffice, an executive coaching and consulting firm specializing in management development
and succession planning (www.HRBackOffice.com). Hare, the creator of the standard
tool for diagnosing psychopathy and author of "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among us,"
is an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and president of Darkstone Research Group,
a forensic research and consulting firm (www.hare.org).
"Psychopaths invest energy in creating and maintaining a facade that facilitates their careers," said Hare. "During
the hiring process they convince decision makers of their unique talents and abilities - albeit based upon lies and
distortion.
"Executives are always looking for the best and brightest ... but there are not that many from which to choose,"
Hare said. "As times goes on, the psychopath will continue to manage this positive reputation
for as long as it is useful to him or her. ... Executives view themselves as good judges of people, and few
want to be told that they were wrong about something as basic as honesty and integrity. This aspect of human nature
works in favor of the psychopath."
Hare will be a keynote speaker at the 19th Annual ACFE Fraud Conference & Exhibition in Boston in July. He spoke
to Fraud Magazine from his home in Vancouver, B.C., and Babiak from his home in Dutchess County, N.Y.
Do you believe that most fraudsters are psychopaths or do they just exhibit anti-social behavior?
Hare: There are many reasons why people engage in fraudulent behavior, some related to economic necessity, cultural,
social, and peer pressures, special circumstances, opportunities, and so forth. Many of these people are small-time
criminals just "doing their job," and their victims are relatively few in number. Much more problematic are fraudsters
whose activities reflect a virulent mix of personality traits and behaviors including grandiosity;
sense of entitlement; a propensity to lie, deceive, cheat, and manipulate; a lack of empathy and remorse;
an inability to develop deep emotional and social connections with others; and the view that
others are merely resources to be exploited - callously and without regret.
These white-collar psychopaths often are heavily involved in obscenely lucrative scams of every sort. They lead lavish
lifestyles while their victims lose their life savings, their dignity, and their health - a financial death penalty
as one law enforcement officer put it. The public and the courts have difficulty in appreciating the enormity of the
damage done by these social predators, and because their crimes often do not involve direct physical violence, they
may receive comparatively light fines and sentences, and early parole. The money obtained from their depredations is
seldom recovered, leaving the victims and the public bewildered and convinced that crime certainly does pay when committed
by those whose charm, egocentricity, and deception disguise a flabby conscience.
You've designed the "Psychopathy Checklist - Revised" (PCL-R), the standard tool for diagnosing
psychopathy. Can you briefly describe its methodology and how it differs from other forms of measurement?
Hare: The PCL-R is a 20-item clinical construct rating scale for the assessment of psychopathy in forensic populations.
Qualified professionals use interview and detailed file/collateral information to score each item on 3-point scales
(0, 1, 2) according to the extent to which an individual matches explicit criteria for the item. The resulting total
scores can vary from 0 to 40 and reflect the extent to which the individual matches the "prototypical psychopath." One
derivative of the PCL-R, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV), often is used in community and civil
psychiatric research on psychopathy. It has 12 items, with total scores that can vary from 0 to 24. The items in each
instrument are grouped into the same four factors or dimensions, each of which contributes to the measurement of psychopathy.
For example, the items in the PCL: SV dimensions are: Interpersonal (Superficial, Grandiose, Deceitful); Affective (Lacks
remorse, Lacks empathy, Doesn't accept responsibility for own behavior); Lifestyle (Impulsive, Lacks goals, Irresponsibility);
Antisocial (Poor behavioral controls, Adolescent antisocial behavior, Adult antisocial behavior). The PCL-R and the
PCL: SV are strongly related to one another, both conceptually and empirically and have much the same psychometric,
explanatory, and predictive properties. Because of their demonstrated reliability and validity, they are widely used
in basic and applied research on psychopathy and for clinical and forensic evaluations.
The personality disorder measured by the PCL-R is similar to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), described in
the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV. The difference is that the PCL-R places considerable emphasis on the
interpersonal and affective traits associated with psychopathy, whereas ASPD is defined more by antisocial behaviors.
As a result, ASPD fails to capture the traditional construct of psychopathy and is much more prevalent in community
and forensic populations than is psychopathy.
Self-report personality inventories also are used for the assessment of psychopathic traits and behaviors. The information
provided by these instruments reflects the individual's self-understanding and evaluation, what he or she is willing
to disclose to others, and impression management. It may be difficult to obtain accurate self-reports of affective experiences
associated with psychopathic tendencies. Further, self-report measures of psychopathy are only moderately correlated
with the PCL-R and its derivatives. Nonetheless, they provide useful information from the individual's perspective,
and contribute to our understanding of the psychopathy construct, particularly in the general population. One derivative
of the PCL-R is the B-Scan or Business Integrity Scan, which includes both a self-report version and a supervisor's
rating version. We developed the scan out of our experiences with, and research on, the lack of integrity and honesty
of corporate psychopaths. Although not a clinical measure of psychopathy, it is designed to tap into the behaviors,
attitudes and judgments relevant to ethical business practices.
You've written that many people, after reading or hearing you speak, begin wondering if their
bosses and co-workers are psychopaths - or even themselves! I imagine all of us exhibit psychopathic traits at various
times, but what are the prevailing characteristics that you believe a person must exhibit to actually be diagnosed as
a psychopath? How do you distinguish a psychopath from a difficult person?
Hare: Television constantly describes the symptoms associated with an endless list of diseases, some real, some contrived.
The viewer may have one of the symptoms of disease X, say a sore throat, and worry that he or she has the disease. But
this symptom is shared by scores of conditions other than disease X, and sometimes a sore throat is simply a sore throat.
What people don't take into account is that a given disease or medical condition is defined and diagnosed by a set of
symptoms, a syndrome, and that one or two of the defining symptoms may be of little diagnostic value. One symptom does
not a disease make, nor does being impulsive, egocentric, irresponsible, and so forth make someone a psychopath; difficult,
perhaps, but not psychopathic.
Psychopathy is defined by having a heavy dose of the features that comprise the disorder. How heavy? Like blood pressure,
the construct measured by the PCL-R and PCL: SV is dimensional. The threshold for "high blood pressure" or for a label
of "hypertensive" is somewhat arbitrary, but typically falls in a range where there is increased risk to the individual's
health. The threshold for "psychopathy" also is somewhat arbitrary, but generally is set rather high, at a level where
the individual's manipulative, callous, egocentric, predatory, irresponsible, and remorseless behaviors begin to infringe
upon the rights and safety of others. For example, researchers often adopt a PCL: SV score of 18 (out of 24) for "probable
psychopathy," and a score of 13 for "possible psychopathy." To put this into context, the average PCL: SV score is less
than 3 for samples from the general population, and around 13 for samples from forensic populations. Most of those in
the general population receive a PCL: SV score of 0 or 1. So, even those who appear to exhibit a few psychopathic features
would fall well below thresholds for possible or probable psychopathy. This does not mean that such individuals are
saint-like; they could still be very "difficult" for reasons other than psychopathy. Their values, beliefs, or personal
style may not be appealing to us, but they may be honest, have integrity, experience emotions at a real level, and contribute
to the success of the organization. These "difficult" people also can make sincere efforts to moderate their attitudes
and behaviors so as to fit more comfortably into the corporate culture or social norms of their work group. Psychopaths,
on the other hand, lack integrity, are dishonest and manipulative, and do not experience deep-seated emotions. They
may go through the motions of change in order to achieve their goals, but it will be little more than play-acting. Like
Iago in Shakespeare's Othello, psychopaths can be "good" or "bad," depending on what is likely to work best at the time.
What do psychopaths want? What are their motivations?
Hare: They want many of the same basic things that the rest of us want, but, in addition, have an inordinate need
for power, prestige, wealth, and so forth. They differ from most of us in terms of how much they "need," their sense
of entitlement to whatever they want, and the means with which they are willing to achieve their ends. They also differ
dramatically from others in the communal nature of their needs and goals. That is, the sense of altruism, concern for
the welfare of family, friends, and society, and the social rules, expectations, and reciprocity that guide most people
are irrelevant to psychopaths. They operate according to their own self-serving principle: look out for number 1, no
matter what the cost to others, and without guilt or remorse.
Do psychopaths feel emotions and respond to emotions in others?
Hare: The emotional life of psychopaths lacks the range and depth found in most individuals. It often is described
as shallow and barren, consisting mostly of "proto-emotions," somewhat primitive responses associated with their own
needs and experiences. Their displays of anger, hostility, envy, and response to frustration are likely to be much more
intense and genuine than their feelings of empathy, love, shame, and sorrow. While at times they may appear cold and
unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling. They are able to mimic emotions
rather convincingly, but an astute observer may be left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little
is going on below the surface. This, of course, raises an interesting question. If their own emotional life is relatively
barren how are they so adept at "reading" and responding to the emotions of other people? The answer seems to be that
they have learned that what others describe as a given emotional state is reflected in a distinct pattern of verbal
cues and body language. Psychopaths are able to use this information to intuit an emotional state that they don't really
understand. In this sense, they are like a color-blind person who "recognizes" color because of the context in which
it occurs (the red light is at the top of the traffic signal) and therefore gives the appearance of color perception.
However, no amount of training and practice will allow the color-blind person to really understand color or the psychopath
to really understand the emotional life of others, except in a vague intellectual, inferential sense. To put it simply,
they don't know how you feel, nor do they much care.
You've written that some researchers have said that psychopaths "know the words but not the
music." What does that mean?
Hare: It means that psychopaths understand the denotative, dictionary meanings of words but do not fully appreciate
their connotative, emotional meaning. Their language is only "word deep," lacking in emotional coloring. Saying "I love
you" or "I'm truly sorry" has about as much emotional meaning as saying "have a nice day." This lack of emotional depth
in language is part of their more general poverty of affect as described by clinicians and observed in neuroimaging
studies.
What are the differences between psychopaths, sociopaths, and those with narcissistic personality
or histrionic personality disorders?
Hare: The terms psychopathy and sociopathy refer to related but not identical conditions. Psychopaths have a pattern
of personality traits and behaviors not readily understood in terms of social or environmental factors. They are described
as without conscience and incapable of empathy, guilt, or loyalty to anyone but themselves. Sociopathy is not a formal
psychiatric condition. It refers to a pattern of attitudes, values, and behaviors that is considered antisocial and
criminal by society at large, but seen as normal or necessary by the subculture or social environment in which it developed.
Sociopaths may have a well-developed conscience and a normal capacity for empathy, guilt, and loyalty, but their sense
of right and wrong is based on the norms and expectations of their subculture or group.
Many criminals might be described as sociopaths.
Narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders are described in DSM-IV, and their differences from psychopathy
are outlined in "Snakes in Suits."
Briefly, narcissistic personality disorder involves an excessive need for admiration,
a sense of superiority and entitlement, and a lack of empathy. It does not necessarily include the lifestyle
and antisocial features of psychopathy, outlined earlier.
Histrionic personality disorder is defined by excessive and overly dramatic emotionality, attention-seeking,
and a strong need for approval. It lacks the lifestyle and antisocial features of psychopathy.
Do we have research that indicates that a person is a psychopath because of genetics, the environment,
or both? If it's partially environmental, what could happen to a person so he or she develops into a psychopath?
Hare: All personality traits are the result of genetic-environmental interactions. Recent research in behavioral
genetics indicates that callous-unemotional traits and antisocial tendencies, likely precursors to the dimensions of
psychopathy described earlier, are highly heritable. There is no evidence that psychopathy can result solely from social
or environmental influences. This doesn't mean that some people are destined to become psychopaths, only that the process
of socialization is much more difficult for those with early indications of the precursors of the disorder.
Do male and female psychopaths practice their deceptions in different ways? If so, how?
Hare: There are many clinical accounts of female psychopaths but relatively little empirical
research. The available evidence suggests that male and female psychopaths share similar interpersonal and
affective features, including egocentricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, and lack of empathy. All will make maximum
use of their physical attributes to deceive and manipulate others, but female psychopaths may be less prone than males
to use overt, direct physical aggression to attain their ends. The term femme fatale comes
to mind.
What are some ways that companies can screen out psychopaths during the interview and background
check processes? This has to be extremely hard because psychopaths exhibit all the right qualities (and fake the rest)
when companies are vetting them for jobs.
Babiak: Psychopaths make great first impressions and have extremely effective interviewing skills, so relying on
employment interviews alone when making hiring decisions can lead an organization to make the wrong choice. The risk
is increased by the use of untrained or inadequately trained interviewers who are unaware of the psychopath's skill
at lying and deception, and therefore don't take the necessary extra steps to verify all information collected.
Improving one's chances of detecting psychopathic lying during the employment process requires verification of all
details presented (knowledge, experience, expertise), and exploring and challenging discrepancies. Psychopaths talk
a good game on a surface level, and will use technical jargon and glib, superficial charm to convince the interviewer
of their experience and expertise. As much as possible, resume data should be checked before
the interview. Then, by using structured interviewing techniques and multiple interviewers from different
functions and levels in the organization, inconsistencies can be explored further and details
drilled down.
It is critical that all interviewers get together to share their findings and impressions before an offer is made.
During this important meeting, the discrepancies noted and possible deceptions will be uncovered.
Relying on a group decision removes the psychopath's advantage in manipulating just one interviewer
successfully.
Can you talk briefly about the "three personalities" that are within all of us?
Babiak: Deep down we all have a private experience of ourselves, our personality, which consists of our needs, values,
emotions and so forth. This self-perception includes things we know about ourselves that we are comfortable sharing,
other characteristics we wish to keep private, and even some parts that are unknown even to us. This is our inner or
private personality. When we deal with others, though, we tend to limit the presentation of our personality to those
things we like, are socially acceptable, and can positively influence those around us. This is our persona, or public
self. We wear this mask in public. The third point of view of the personality is our reputation among those who know
or interact with us; that is, our attributed personality.
In a business world, where "perception is reality," this last view of our personality - our reputation - is the most
important. It influences how others will treat us and how decisions are made about us, and can ultimately foster or
derail our careers. Unfortunately, many people are unaware of or discount this view of themselves. Sometimes it is only
upon receipt of hard data, often in the form of "360-degree" feedback given during training programs, that they learn
how others really perceive them.
The psychopath operates on the surface level, presenting a mask or persona that is in keeping
with the expectations of the organization and its members. Typically, this mask is: "I am the ideal employee
and leader."
The psychopath invests considerable effort creating and managing this facade through impression management techniques.
Those who have power and authority will be shown only this mask - that is, the facade of an employee who is honest,
productive, caring, with leadership potential, and so forth - and will integrate it into their evaluation of the psychopath
- in effect, the psychopath's reputation. Those who are of little value to the psychopath will not receive such careful
impression management, and may come to see the psychopath for who he or she really is. Unfortunately, however, they
are often in positions least likely to influence the thinking of those in power.
In a nutshell, how do psychopaths judge the personalities of others?
Babiak: Psychopaths often come across as good psychologists, but in reality they are just more observant of others
and are motivated to take advantage of the traits, characteristics, and personal situations of those around them. Psychopaths
use the same three-part personality model to build strong relationships with others. They initially present a charming,
charismatic mask, persona, which is often quite likeable. When they want to deepen the relationship (because the target
has something they want), they first convince the target that they truly like him or her (that is, like his or her own
persona or outward self). Then, they convince the target that they are more similar than different in many ways (including
at the deep psychological level). Thirdly, they convince the target that they fully understand and accept the target's
own true, private, and inner personality (the one with all of its secrets), and, therefore, because of this acceptance,
they can be trusted. Finally, they convince the target that they (the psychopaths) are the ideal friend, partner, coworker,
and so forth; this forms the "psychopathic bond." This bond is quite seductive, as few people reach this level of psychological
intimacy with others in the work environment. Once this bond is formed, it is very difficult for the target to see the
truth about the psychopath as he or she continues to be manipulated.
In business situations, do psychopaths target particular individuals? If so, what kinds of
persons?
Babiak: Psychopaths are always on the lookout for individuals of whom they can take advantage. We often correctly
assume that they target those with high status and power in the organization, but they also identify those with subtle,
informal power in the organization. For example, many secretaries control access to their principals whom a psychopath
will want to influence. Middle-level managers control the flow of materials, information, and processes that might prove
useful to a psychopath. Individual contributors in professional positions (for example, those in IT, finance, and auditing),
despite the lack of authority over staff, have great amounts of influence over information and other resources useful
to the corporate psychopath. Any person with perceived utility to the psychopath will be targeted.
I know this is complex, but how are psychopaths able to manipulate people within an organization
to be, as you call them, "pawns," and "patrons"?
Babiak: This model evolved out of our observations of how the "psychopathic drama" unfolds. It captures the theatrical
nature of the psychopaths' view of organizational life. Psychopaths see themselves as the writers, directors, and producers
of the dramas that are their lives - on and off their jobs; other people only exist to fulfill the supporting roles
required of them - the pawns, and patrons.
Psychopaths form bonds with many people in the organization; that is, psychopathic bonds, not real ones. The psychopath
views as pawns those who have the power, status, or access to desired resources, to be used until their utility is gone,
and then dispensed with or even sacrificed. Patrons are those key power holders whom the psychopath relies upon for
protection and defense when things get uncomfortable, much like the "mentors" or "godfathers" who exist in many large
companies to assist high potentials negotiate their way through the political minefields to the top.
In addition, there is the patsy - a former pawn or patron whose organizational power and influence has been effectively
neutralized by the psychopath. Finally, there are the organizational police, those in control positions such as accounting,
HR, IT, and security who are in the best position to unseat the psychopath, but who often are not listened to by those
in power, and who have already been trapped in the psychopathic bond. The psychopath prefers to avoid the organizational
police (they tend to have ethical and professional values which are anathema to the psychopath), but having one in his
or her vest pocket can be invaluable.
It makes sense that psychopaths would try to influence recognized top managers, but how do
they manipulate and use "informal leaders," those who wield influence but might not be high on the organizational chart?
Babiak: While formal power holders are credited with leading their organizations, it is often a group of informal
leaders who gets things done on a day-to-day basis. Unfortunately, in many companies, these informal leaders are the
unsung heroes - and feel as such. What better person to convince that they have value and a friend in high places, as
the psychopath moves up, than these individuals? They are the perfect targets from the up-and-coming psychopath's point
of view.
How can a person avoid becoming ensnared in a one-sided relationship with a psychopath?
Babiak: Knowledge certainly is power in this case. It is important to learn as much as one can about psychopaths
- their traits and characteristics, and how they operate. Furthermore, one should learn more about oneself, particularly
those things that would make one attractive to a psychopath. These can include power and control of resources (formal
and informal), as well as any psychological or emotional weak spots or hot buttons that can be used to unduly influence
you. Psychopaths don't operate in a social vacuum, and those with whom they have worked or interacted can be valuable
sources of information.
You've written that once psychopaths are within an organization, they revert to their natural
three-phase behavior pattern - assessment, manipulation, and abandonment. Can you briefly describe those three steps?
Can you also describe the ascension phase?
Babiak: In society, psychopaths exhibit a fairly consistent pattern of behavior. They identify
targets (assessment phase), use them (manipulation phase), and dispense with them when their utility is used up (abandonment
phase). In organizations, the abandonment phase is difficult to manage, as the psychopath cannot just move
on, in the physical sense. This can lead to confrontations with former pawns who now feel like patsies. But the psychopath
has already prepared for this, having spread disparaging information about these individuals
- that is, "poisoned the water" - among those in positions of power.Those who ultimately
confront a corporate psychopath often come to find themselves on the chopping block.
In some cases, psychopaths see opportunities to move up in the power hierarchies by unseating those who have mentored
or protected them, their patrons, in the ultimate acts of betrayal. This form of ascension can be particularly rewarding
to a psychopath who has played both the patron and other members of the organization.
Are most corporate and organizational psychopaths loners or do they sometimes team up with
other psychopaths to pull off fraud schemes?
Babiak: Most of the individuals we have met have been "loners" in the sense of only thinking of themselves; however,
they do surround themselves with supporters and followers to facilitate their activities. To the degree that the psychopath
can get these naÔve supporters to believe that their actions are consistent with their own personal values, the game
remains in play.
Occasionally, two psychopaths may work as a team in the same organization, at least for short periods. Inevitably,
there will be a falling out: two stars is one too many. In one case, two corporate psychopaths worked in the same company
but were in different divisions and rarely interacted. Historically, there may have been instances of psychopaths working
together. One wonders who was "more" psychopathic: Joseph Stalin or his henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the secret
police.
Have the Internet and other technological developments aided psychopaths?
Hare: Immeasurably! The Internet and technology have given psychopaths and other predators access to a virtually
unlimited pool of potential victims. They can promote phony stocks, circulate crooked investment schemes, siphon off
bank accounts, commit identity theft, and so forth, all with little risk to themselves. They also can promote themselves
by constructing fake or greatly embellished Web sites and credentials in order to lure unsuspecting victims. In a very
real sense, the Internet and associated technology represent a paradise on earth for fraudsters, with even better things
to come.
The business world of the 1980s and 1990s went through startling changes after decades of relative
stability in culture and procedures. And now we're in an economic slowdown or possible recession. Have these changes
helped or hindered psychopaths in organizations?
Babiak: While economic slowdowns can lead to layoffs and plant closings, there is still the need for seasoned, experienced
leaders who have the wherewithal to meet the challenge of recovery and turnaround. These individuals are rare. What
a perfect scenario for the psychopath to enter as the "solution," replete with the skills (faked),
abilities (faked), and background (faked) necessary to take over and makes things right.
There is also greater access to higher education in general than before, as well as questionable online degrees that
can be bought and used by psychopaths to pad their resumes. Losing one's job no longer bears the stigma - or provokes
as much concern - as it once did; layoffs and plant closings have left many truly stellar executives with gaps in their
employment histories. Economic conditions can be a convenient explanation for short tenures listed on the resume. While
a psychopath would be expected to blame the former boss's personality or colleagues' underhandedness for losing his
or her job, a really clever one can feign some sadness at having to leave "a great job at a great company" due to economic
conditions.
You've written that organizations have become more "psychopath friendly." What do you mean
by that?
Babiak: The change of organizational structures from large and bureaucratic to lean, mean, and flat has inadvertently
made companies more attractive to psychopaths (fewer rules) and, at the same time, easier to negotiate (faster progression).
There is more opportunity for a motivated psychopath to stand out amongst his or her peers, less hoops to jump through,
and shorter distances to the top. Changes in work values among employees have also facilitated
entry by psychopaths. Many companies, initially puzzled by the demands of "younger" workers for large sign-on
bonuses and promotions at least every two years, are beginning to accept this as part of a new work style that needs
to be accommodated in some way. A young psychopath would fit in quite nicely in this culture.
You've written that you doubt that psychopathic individuals would be very successful in a highly
structured traditional bureaucracy. Why is that?
Babiak: Bureaucracies, by design, are rule-bound structures. They are the result of a stage of organizational development
in which companies attempt to systematize their operations in pursuit of consistency, quality, and productivity. An
unfortunate outcome also is that they can become quite boring, slow to respond, and intolerant of creativity and innovation.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the speed required of businesses to maintain their positions, and perhaps grow market
share, increased. This put a tremendous strain on organizational systems - the bureaucracy - as well as on employees
and managers - the culture. The mantra became "do more, better, faster with less" - a difficult task, at best. In response
to accelerated market demands, organizations began to jettison parts of their bureaucracy - policies and procedures
- in the interest of speed. Entire levels of management were eliminated under the theory that communications would improve
from top to bottom. Systems once thought to be helpful were eliminated or "reengineered" away. By eliminating those
policies and procedures that could help uncover psychopathic behavior - formal performance appraisals are a good example
- and systems that help prevent their hiring - structured employment practices - it became much easier for someone with
psychopathic tendencies to slip in and look successful.
Unfortunately, this is where the psychopath has an advantage; these new structures are always in a state of flux
and never reach the "ideal" state. We call them "transitional organizations" because the transitioning never ends. This
frustrates and confuses those who have grown accustomed to the stability that large organizations used to provide. Being
a thrill seeker by nature, the psychopath relishes the chaos. On a practical level, a constantly changing work environment
provides the psychopath an endless source of new coworkers to target and many opportunities to move from project to
project when boredom sets in.
Can you talk about how psychopathic fraudsters use affinity groups (religious, political, or
social entities in which all members share common values or beliefs) to pull off their schemes?
Hare: We refer to these schemes as affinity fraud. They rely on the fact that members of an affinity group typically
are very trusting of others who profess to share their values, beliefs, and interests. Those who are most adept at perpetrating
affinity fraud are psychopaths who gain entry into the group by developing an acquaintance with a member who then introduces
the fraudster as "one of us." The result is a "fox in the henhouse," with predictable results. Religious groups, are
particularly vulnerable; belief in the inherent goodness of others and uncritical acceptance of professions of faith
are tailor-made for an enterprising psychopath. Sadly, even after being victimized, many members of a group will refuse
to face the truth, continuing to believe that the scamster is basically good at heart or that there must be a reason
why he or she took advantage of the group. Even sophisticated members of financial and business groups - such as investment
clubs - often are no match for the charm and seduction of a good-looking, well-dressed, and apparently well-connected
psychopath. A suspicious view of newcomers might help but is no guarantee of immunity to infiltration by someone intent
on doing the group harm. Even organizations that by their very nature are extremely cynical and suspicious - such as
intelligence agencies and criminal gangs - cannot protect themselves completely from those who misrepresent their credentials,
connections, and intentions.
Joseph Wells, the founder and chairman of the ACFE, has concentrated on teaching not just about
fraudsters' actions but their psychological motivations and aberrations. How can a group like ours aid its members in
spotting possible psychopaths and prevent them from transforming their behaviors into crimes?
Babiak: Increasing the professional standards and training of fraud examiners is a good foundation. Knowledge about
the nature of psychopaths and of the strategies and tactics they use is important. Even so, it can be very difficult
to spot them without detailed information from a variety of sources about their behavior and manipulations especially
if you are the one being targeted. It is also important for examiners to understand themselves and how their own personality
traits and vulnerabilities may play into the hands of a psychopath. A confidential "hot line" could be made available
to members who have suspicions and need coaching and advice on how to proceed.
Are most psychopaths in organizations exposed or do they remain or go on to greater positions?
Babiak: With one exception, all of the psychopaths that we have studied are still in positions
of authority in their companies. In some cases, they have risen within the ranks, and in others, they have
solid positions from which they continue to use their organizations for personal gain. The one psychopath we studied
who was fired ended up leaving with a sizeable financial package and a company car. He was hired by a competitor at
a significantly greater salary. Unfortunately, in their effort to rid themselves of problems and to avoid embarrassment
in front of corporate or financial communities, some organizations will cover up their messes and even write favorable
letters of recommendation thus facilitating psychopaths' devious journeys up corporate ladders.
Since the publication of "Snakes in Suits," we have received an increased number of calls from executives, entrepreneurs,
and principals who now suspect that someone on their staff - or even an equity partner - is a corporate psychopath.
We see that awareness of the problem has increased, as has the willingness to take action to remove or otherwise deal
with the problem person.
How does a fraud examiner identify possible psychopaths after they're hired? I imagine it's
a sensitive issue to put the psychopath label on anybody, but how should a fraud examiner proceed to prevent a possible
fraud or should they even try? Is it ever possible to discern the potential for fraud in a suspected psychopath?
Babiak: In business situations, it is rarely useful to label someone a psychopath; organizations can only respond
to the overt behaviors of fraudsters and others. Suspecting that a client (or even a coworker) has psychopathic traits
can help sensitize an examiner to search out and investigate subtle forms of lying and deceit. If the client is highly
psychopathic, the odds are that some form of corporate misbehavior, perhaps fraud, is underway, but hidden from view.
If inconsistencies and improprieties begin to surface, it is important that the examiner's focus remain on the facts
of each case, as the psychopath will try to distract him or her through flattery, misdirection, questioning the examiner's
competence or authority to investigate, and so forth.
What steps lead to the confrontation of a psychopath and how is it carried out? Can a psychopath
ever be rehabilitated?
Hare: Like anyone suspected of corporate misbehavior or fraud, confrontation of a suspected psychopath should occur
after all the facts have been obtained, verified, digested, and interpreted, and in accordance with corporate policies
and due process. In addition, however, it is important to anticipate the potential reactions of the psychopath, which
may include "plausible" indignation and denial, diffusion of blame and responsibility, appeals to a "higher" authority,
verbal abuse, and threats of litigation. In such cases, it is essential to ensure that the case against the individual
is factually and legally sound and to "stand one's ground."
A somewhat different tactic sometimes employed by those accused of misbehavior is to admit it, claim that the behavior
was out of character, and solemnly pledge to change. However, when dealing with a suspected psychopath such tactics
should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is little evidence that psychopaths can be, or even believe
that they should be, rehabilitated. Their behavior reflects a well-established, stable personality structure. Most people
have some insight into the motivations for their own behavior, and will accept that changes need to be made in order
to be a good corporate citizen. Unfortunately, psychopaths already are aware of their own motivations, see little wrong
with them, and do not believe they need to change. However, if they think that "rehabilitation" can serve their own
selfish, pragmatic ends, then they are quite capable of playing the game, portraying themselves as a "saved" or "redeemed"
sinner.
Dick Carozza is editor-in-chief of Fraud Magazine.
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners assumes sole copyright of any article published on
www.fraud-magazine.com or www.ACFE.com.
ACFE follows a policy of exclusive publication. Permission of the publisher is required before an article can be copied
or reproduced. Requests for reprinting an article in any form must be e-mailed to:
FraudMagazine@ACFE.com.
Last week an e-mail went round the office touting for suggestions on ways to improve our performance appraisal system.
My suggestion is dead easy and dirt cheap: get rid
of the whole thing and replace it with nothing at all.
Normally, if I have any bright ideas about how this newspaper could be managed better, I propose them in private.
It is not seemly to wash the Financial Times’ dirty linen in public. Yet when it comes to appraisals, the linen of every
other company is covered with much the same filthy stains as ours, and so there seems no shame in suggesting a mass
outing to the launderette.
Over the past 30 years, I have been appraised three dozen times – as banker, journalist and non-executive director.
I’ve lived through the craze for long, complicated forms. I’ve also survived the informal fashion in which appraisals
are called “career chats” and where a bogus air of equality prevails. I’ve done appraisals across a table, on a sofa,
even over a meal. I’ve had them à deux and à trois – with a facilitator in tow.
But never have I learnt anything about myself as a result. I have never set any target that I subsequently hit. Instead
I always feel as if I am playing a particularly dismal game of charades, with three disadvantages over the traditional
parlour game. There is no dressing-up box; there is no correct answer to guess and it isn’t remotely fun. The norm is
a harrowing hour’s conversation during which you are forced to swallow an indigestible mix of praise and criticism referring
to long-ago events, which leaves you demotivated and confused on the most basic question: am I doing a good job? The
resulting form is then put on file, making you feel vaguely paranoid, even though you know from experience how much
attention will be subsequently paid to it: none whatsoever.
At least I’ve only had to suffer one side of the process. I have never – thank goodness – had to appraise anyone
else, which must be even more tiresome as you have to perform the same operation with each underling in turn, wearily
letting people believe they are doing more or less okay, because it’s too tiring to drop the bombshell that they aren’t
doing okay at all.
I have a friend in a large company who spends an entire month each year appraising her team. She says the system
has been “improved” so that she no longer sorts people into “exceptional performers”, “good performers” and so on. Instead
she works through a list of mysterious attributes – such as “leverages mastery” and “innovates holistically” – choosing
three strengths and one development need (or weakness, as it was formerly known) for each.
She admits that this system – which applies to almost 100,000 people worldwide – is utterly
idiotic. But when I suggest it be scrapped she looks shocked. “Out of the question,” she says. “That would
be interpreted as us saying we don’t care about developing people.”
Not by everyone, it seems. Last week
Samuel Culbert, a business school
professor in California, went on US radio to say that all appraisal systems were total baloney. He thinks even less
of them than I do. They were a throwback to the bad old days of management by objective, he said, and only persisted
because they allow evil managers to hold employees down and because HR managers are like the KGB when it comes to hoarding
information.
His alternative, which he describes in his new book Get Rid of the Performance Review, is that bosses and underlings
should have regular, equal conversations during which the boss says things like: “What do you need from me to deliver
what we are both on the firing line to produce?”
This is a fantastic idea. The only trouble is that it bears no relation to the world as I know it; managers don’t
talk or think like that.
The most sinister thing about the current system is that it allows managers to delude themselves into thinking that
they are managing their people.
With this delusion stripped away, some managers might take matters into their own hands. They might even start saying
“that’s good” and “that’s not so good” at the only helpful time to say such things: when they have just happened. This
sort of thing is called managing, and the beauty of it is that it makes formal appraisals quite unnecessary.
Even for those whose managers did nothing to fill the gap, there would still be a net gain from scrapping appraisals.
Time and energy would be saved and the only two things lost would be cynicism and paranoia.
"Specifically, we claim that higher income inequality between executives and ordinary workers results in executives
perceiving themselves as being all-powerful and this perception of power leads them to maltreat rank and file workers."
The Wall Street Journal reports today on a study by three academics on CEO pay. They are Streedhari Desai (Harvard),
Jennifer George (Rice) and Arthur Brief (Utah), and their study is "When
Executives Rake in Millions: Meanness in Organizations" (available on SSRN). Here's the abstract:
The topic of executive compensation has received tremendous attention over the years from both the research community
and popular media. In this paper, we examine a heretofore ignored consequence of rising executive compensation.
Specifically, we claim that higher income inequality between executives and ordinary workers
results in executives perceiving themselves as being all-powerful and this perception of power leads them to maltreat
rank and file workers. We present findings from two studies - an archival study and a laboratory experiment
– that show that increasing executive compensation results in executives behaving meanly toward those lower down
the hierarchy. We discuss the implications of our findings for organizations and offer some solutions to the problem.
Trends in this country are ominous.
Wages for the middle class have stagnated, especially with the waning power of labor unions to demand an adequate
share of corporate revenues (a result of the decades-long effort of neocons and multinational corporations to kill
labor unions and make new unionization efforts in previously nonunionized industries very difficult through generous
provisions for employer control and significant hurdles for union approval).
The middle class has therefore depended more on debt than it should, a dependency that has been encouraged by
the financialization of the economy and the hunger of the financial institutions and shadow banking system for "product"
from which it can reap multiple layers of fees and excess profits. That easy flow of credit led directly to the
financial crisis that caused the Great Recession.
Meanwhile, those at the top have done well and those at the very top--the ultra rich in the top tier of corporate
status and in the finance (and shadow finance) industry and its related hangers-on--have done exceedingly well by
being able to keep a much larger share of the business profits for themselves.
That inequality then has created a feedback cycle of disrespect for ordinary workers
and greed for more profits and status and power that also led directly to the financial crisis that caused the Great
Recession.
And now we learn the capping blow (which common sense tells us anyway, given what we know about human nature
and its frequent inability to handle the struggle between self-interest and altruism in ways that benefit all)
those at the top who have been paying themselves exceedingly well (and their buddies when
they serve on their boards of directors) are likely to treat their employees exceedingly poorly. Greed at the top
goes along with meanness towards those considered "beneath" them.
Looks like higher level of inequality produced more sociopaths in upper echelons of power. That is really observable
in financial industry. See also "The future of finance" a free ebook with entries by Adair Turner, Peter Boone and Simon
Johnson among others: http://www.futureoffinance.org.uk/
sociophile:
According to the bestseller "The Sociopath Next Door" by former Harvard psychologist Martha Stout, 1 in 25 people
are sociopaths. What does that mean? It's not anything like an internal struggle of conscience, a battle of good
versus evil deep in the soul. It's much more frightening and diabolical than that. Similar to someone who is color
blind being unable to see the colors red or green, a sociopath is unable to feel emotions like empathy, compassion
or love. A sociopath could crush the skull of a puppy and feel nothing at all other than perhaps a passing sense
of curiousity at best or, more villainously, a sense of sporting entertainment. After the first few million, I think
it doubtful Bernie Madoff cared anything at all about the money. It was all about screwing the dumb suckers, taking
it all from the pathetic little ants and getting away with it. I suspect that finance is an industry where the proportion
of sociopaths in the population rises significantly greater than 1 in 25. Regulation may not be enough. The threat
of harsh and lengthy prison sentences backed up by vigorous and vigilant prosecution may be in order.
K Ackermann :
I think the sociopath potential is in most people.
The police and the military
have to train people to be able to aim a gun at another person and pull the trigger.
Some still never will, but for those that do, most report it gets easier the more they do it. Something gets
shut off; it's not something missing or extra, it's just shut off.
Big bonuses tend to attract and/or train sociopaths.
Mbuna said...
Well, let's get to the heart of the problem. Teaching ethics and having it stick only occurs in a cultural circumstance.
Certainly in the past (50 years ago let's say) there was a pretty clear delineation between what was right and ethical
and what was not. The basis for such ethics of right and wrong was the Judeo-Christian culture that had a very prevalent
voice in society back then.
I am stating as fact that the Judeo-Christian religious culture has lost a tremendous amount of influence in
the last 50 years and that trend shows no sign of reversing. In fact I would say that the Renaissance was the real
start of the world secularizing trend and it has continued to this day. The only real problem with this is that
real culture will not last without some kind of real connection to the Source, the Divine, whatever you may wish
to call it.
What we have now is no culture, or call it a secular culture if you will. Look back in history for any other
secular cultures existence and you will not find one.
In all cultures to one degree or another, if you didn't follow the rules of the culture you were separated or
ostracized, and this kept the core of the culture strong. Our present society lacks this necessary instrument of
culture which is why I say we have no culture. Government laws do not suffice and if they did then we would have
a police state.
So now lets jump back to ethics on Wall St. My point is that in a real culture you could be hired and everyone
would not only understand what was required of them ethically but understand the wisdom of behind it. And that fundamental
wisdom is the understanding of what works for the greater good of all. As long as we have this secular, adolescent,
me first mentality, no amount of government structure and regulation will actually work because the people who need
to make the regulation work will not be culturally dependable. This has already been and is currently being demonstrated,
in spades. No one is culturally accountable period, so society just kind of festers into a me first free for all.
We all have to dig a lot deeper to begin to grasp the fundamental issue these times confront us with.
Hawkewinde:
Judeo-Christians don't have a prominent voice in our culture? Give us a break. Or, how about an "indulgence."
"50 years ago there was a pretty clear delineation between what was right and ethical and what was not"
What is this, ancestor worship? 50 years ago, religious zealots beat their wives and lamented the uppity coloreds
all six days between services. Only someone who never had to live back in those times would say something so inappropriately
glorifying about such a savage era.
And what is currently being demonstrated is that over the last 10 years, the bureaucracy was overrun with foaming-at-the-mouth
jesus-school sentinels. Right now is your recommended substitution of competence with "culture" on display.
How about this for a fundamental issue: The backward view that lawlessness is freedom, and ostentatious displays
of religious piety is the same as accountability. That is what contempt for "secular" norms of objectivity brings
to civilization
We might think that bullies are quite different from the victims of bullying. But those
who become either a bully or a victim actually share similar outlooks and have similar difficulties dealing with their
environments. There is, however, one significant risk factor for bullying.
Researchers reviewed and analyzed 153 studies and found that both victims and bullies have poor problem-solving skills
within social situations. They also found that boys bully more than girls but here’s a significant point: Those who
do poorly in school are at a higher risk of becoming a bully. The research was published this week in the journal
School Psychology Quarterly.
Typical bullies have negative attitudes toward others, feel badly about themselves, and
most likely grew up in a home with conflict. Victims share much of same, negative attitude, conflict in the family.
But the dividing characteristic: bullies dislike school and tend to perform worse academically
than those who later become victims.
Most current solutions try to enforce anti-bullying rules or simply remove the bully from bullying situations. The
authors note, however, that the most successful intervention is three-pronged. They suggest simultaneously targeting
the areas that may be influencing the potential bully or victim in the first place: the parents, the peers and the schools.
I once got talking to a guy whose job it was to go into a company, sit alongside the Systems Administrator for two
weeks, and write a professional audit on his processes and practices.
Naturally the sys admin would be on his best behavior, showing off all the clever things he did to keep the company's
computer network ticking over.
At the end of the two weeks, the sys admin would be fired. There was never any audit: this was just the method the
company used to replace their IT people without disruption, making sure the new guy was trained up and the old guy didn't
cause any damage before he left.
===
At a former employer of mine it was common practice to only grant the pay raises and other benefits associated with
a promotion six months after the promotion was given. The official rationale was that management needed to know you
were going to work out in the position. Not suprisingly in practice the vast majority of promotions were recinded 4-5
months after they were announced. They always managed to catch people slipping up SOMEHOW over that time.
It was an horrific system but jobs were so scarce in that area that no one quit. (Obviously it wasn't a union shop.)
Finally things came to a head when my friend and cubicle mate was promoted to group leader. The poor guy was put on
earth to do the kind of Quality Control work the job entailed. He loved his job and worked at least three times faster
than everyone else. Better yet he was obsessive about being on time for everything never slacking off during work hours.
In a normal company he would have shot up the corporate ladder. In this case the management freaked when they couldn't
trip him up after 5 months. They started increasing his workload by the day. To the point where he was doing five and
a half peoples share of analysis. He was my good friend and had a kid and needed the raise so I'd stay late for the
first week and would help him finish his work. Then suddenly everyone was banned from assisting one another in their
work load.
They finally got what they wanted and he missed a deadline and had his promotion canceled. It was honestly the saddest
sight I have ever seen in any workplace. He literally cried the entire day in his cube while still doing his work faster
than any of the rest of us.
===
Call centers collect a lot of stats on their employees, "average handling time" being one of them. They're meant
to be be measures of efficiency, but when these stats are the only thing team leaders have to justify their existence
sometimes that can lead to wackiness.
Take my mate, who was a genuinely nice guy. Far too nice really to be doing the job he was doing.
He thought he was there to help customers get their broadband services connected, his manager thought his job was
to get customers off the phone ASAP in order to get good stats for the month.
Naturally this difference in goals lead to the amusing situation where the manager brought in an egg timer, set it
to go off after a minute then would literally stand over the employee yelling, "Why are you still talking to this customer?!?"
while the employee tried to juggle an irate customer and an irate boss.
After a couple of days of his he was really stressed out. I guess it wasn't helping that he had this whole Pavlovian
dog thing happening with egg timers going off (yes, I'm a big meanie for setting one off during lunch) and he came to
me for advice.
The only honest answer I could give him was to help 2 out of 3 customers and that should bring his handling time
down. Just hang up on or transfer the third one. Although he baulked at this (nice guy), it did work, got his boss off
his back and everyone was happier... well, except the customer obviously.
I suppose that's why I got promoted when I made the suggestion to management that they should make "Customer Satisfaction"
a measure for team leaders as well?
===
I once, very briefly, worked as a telemarketer. I know, you hate me. I'm sorry.
We were collecting charitable donations for "The Police Benevolence Foundation," which had absolutely nothing to
do with the police per se. I still to this day don't know what the money we were collecting for actually went to. They
wouldn't outright tell us. They would only respond to the question by answering 'we might use the money to help officers
who are wounded in the line of duty.' Then again, they might not.
We were told to never accept no for an answer. In fact, we couldn't accept two no's for an answer. We had to be rejected
three times before we could give up. And they actually had to say "No," or "I'm not interested," or in some way offer
a firm rejection. "I don't think I can afford it" did NOT count as a rejection.
So one day, I was listening to an old lady tell her tale of woe: her husband had died, her daughter never visited,
she didn't know where her cat wandered off to, she couldn't afford her medication, she was laid up in bed for two months
and her home care nurse was stealing her valuables... I really didn't want to keep pressing this poor old lady for money.
But she had never said "no."
I should say there was also a strict guideline on how long these calls should LAST. The sooner you get one out of
the way, the sooner you could start ripping off someone else.
Instead, I listened to her and tried to console her as best I could. After about the first three minutes I never
brought up the subject of the Police Benevolence Foundation again. We said goodbye after about 20 minutes and she thanked
me for calling.
As I left for the day, the boss calls me over to berate me for the length of the conversation, and--since it was
screened--hassle me about letting her go without ever getting one firm, "No."
As I walked out the door, I waved and said, "Bye! Bye! Bye!" I never went back.
===
I am a woman. I worked on Wall Street where the C.E.O. (a man) convened a meeting to explore "Women's Issues on Wall
Street." Successful women from the firm were invited along to share their opinions.
One woman, "Diane," said she thought mothers shouldn't take maternity leave, and that women just had to work harder
and longer than men to get ahead.
The C.E.O. appointed Diane as "Head of Women's Issues." Diane's boss was forced out and she became co-Head of our
department, meaning that I reported to her. At 35, I had been trying to get pregnant for years, and, as everyone in
the group knew, was using fertility drugs. Happily, I became pregnant with triplets.
I was a very good producer for the department, but Diane was not happy about my news. She suggested, "as a friend,"
that I abort one or two of my children so I could "better manage my career."
After giving birth to three beautiful children, and taking my full maternity leave; I found a new job on Wall Street.
With three babies, I did not want to fight that fight. Diane continues to move ever-higher on Wall Street.
===
I worked for a Not For Profit organisation where ineptitude is not only tolerated but expected.
These are people who would be slaughtered in a private organisation quicker than you could say 'bleeding heart'.
So this isn't really a corporate tale, more of one about human shortcomings and passing the buck. Pretty much transferable
over to the private industry world.
I worked in a small team, with two managers. Both managers were completely useless and under-performing for years.
As is common for these types, they got away with this by passing the buck and lying to senior management. They blamed
their staff for poor performance, we were lazy, lacking motivation, always late...yada yada. We weren't, in fact we
were surviving and meeting targets in an sector where all our competitors were having their funding cut and being closed
down.
Eventually, these managers had to up their lies - we were difficult (yeh, we were - we told them they were useless),
hard to manage and had 'attitudinal problems' (is that even a word??) The General Manager believed them, HR stepped
in, and we were all put on Performance Management. The shortsightedness of such an act escaped them, and we 'naughty'
staff dutifully attended daily meetings to explain our every act to our hapless manager who didn't actually understand
what it was that we were doing.
This went on for six months, the only thing we could do was laugh and wait to be fired. Eventually, the General Manager
was fired and his replacement quickly cottoned on to what was happening and sacked our crapola managers. We were all
taken off Performance Management, had our 'naughty files' destroyed, and given counselling for our ordeal.
If this isn't incredible enough, it turned out that the old management had been messing up reporting to our government
funding body and we had actually performed 15% above what was originally thought.
===
At a medium-sized private textile company, the CEO prided himself on his benevolence to his employees. He even created
a non-profit Foundation which provided college scholarships for the children of plant workers. Though each scholarship
was only $1000, for the very poor it did provide assistance in helping them achieve their dreams. Each year, the winners
were proudly announced in the company newsletter.
After several years, my old computer died and I needed a new one. The IT guy brought in a used computer from Accounting
for me to use. I soon found that this computer had been used for running the Foundation. The IT guy hadn't wiped the
hard drive and so I was left with lots of information.
As I reviewed the documents (of course I looked), I noticed the CEO's children's names popping up quite frequently--like
once a month. They weren't even in college, so it didn't make sense. And the numbers were much larger, too.
A little digging revealed he was paying his kids' private school tuition out of the Foundation,
to the tune of $25,000 per year for three kids!
Strangely, this one didn't make the company newsletter.
===
I have many stories about this particular Chairman of a company I used to work for, but this is my favorite.
The Chairman hired two assistants to run his office. The woman was "Kate" and the young man was "Alan," but the Chairman
called him "Seven". For days Alan endured the Chairman calling them into the office by yelling down the hall, "Sue!
Seven!"
Finally, Alan asked, "Why do you call me Seven?" The Chairman replied that he was the seventh assistant hired that
month.
Aha. Alan got it, but kindly asked, "Why don't you just call me by my name?"
The Chairman said, "Because you're not going to be f*!%ing around long enough for me to learn your f*!%ing name!"
He then pushed passed Alan, shouting, "Kate! Get rid of Seven and get me Eight!"
===
I was working for a small family-owned company (the kind that are supposed to care about employees, right?) when
my father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. He did chemo and radiation in another state and I cheered him on from
a distance.
Some months later the doctors decided the treatments were not working and there was nothing more to be done.
When i heard this sad news, I worked like a dog for a week to get ahead of my deadlines and explained the situation
to my boss.
ME: So, can I take a week off to go see him?
BOSS: Well, is he dying right now?
ME: No, not yet, but he's terminal.
BOSS: But he's not dying now.
ME: No, but I'd like to see him while he's still lucid.
BOSS: If he's not dying right now, you can't take time off.
I thought I was misunderstanding something, so I explained again and told the boss that I had worked ahead of my
deadlines, etc. He still refused.
I quit and did go see my father. He died two months later.
===
I was once manager of production, responsible for about 45 people. One day, early in the morning, the owner stopped
by my office and informed me that we had just lost our major contract. As a result, we soon wouldn't have enough work
to keep people employed.
When I enquired which one of us should tell the staff this, he instructed me not to inform anyone. Instead, I was
to "find any reason to terminate employees.” For example, if someone was a few minutes late to work, I should immediately
terminate them. He said, "If that doesn't work... give them tasks that will make them want to quit."
I argued against this but the owner threatened to fire me. It was tough times in manufacturing and I needed the job.
Over the next four months I had to personally lay off 85% of our employees. Then they fired
me.
===
I used to work a grocery store which was governed by a woman I would be accurate in describing as a "bean counter".
One day I called in sick, which I was, and this very lovely woman called me a liar and hung up on me. This infuriated
me to the point that I called right back with every intention to resign my post but to frustrate me even more she put
me on hold for ten minutes. Now, this may have been a good thing since I realized while I waited that quitting my job
would hurt me a lot more than it would her. So I decided to resort to using some civilized verbal abuse (and it was
indeed civilized, some words that were in my head did not escape through my mouth) and expressed my discontent with
her attitude towards me as an employee. The conversation ended amicably with us coming to a common understanding. Or
so I thought.
The next time I came into work I was summoned to her office. Once I got there I received no eye contact from her
(her attempt to dominate the situation) and in front of her was my punch clock printout, with every day where I was
even just one minute late highlighted. In this group of days being late my average was about three minutes past the
hour - and this is in Iceland, where if you're ten minutes late, you're on time (in Mexico I'd have been there before
she was). Still she gave me a long lecture on what a bad employee I was - this coming from the only boss I've had who
hasn't given me outstanding recommendations - while my department head stood by almost burying his face in his hands.
I countered with the argument that I made up for it by never taking a cigarette break, since I don't smoke, and her
reply was... that nobody in the company smoked. Which was an insane lie (or delusions of some kind) since more than
half of the staff were smokers at that time.
It's safe to say that I lost that battle unfairly but was redeemed when this very lovely woman got fired for being
an uptight *enter civilized verbal abuse*.
===
I was part of a large team (100+ people) working on a worldwide rollout of a software product. It was quite a complicated
business - the project was scheduled to roll out over a seven year period and we were about halfway through.
Early in the project one of the guys joked that we should have team T-shirts to build morale. Our manager said he
didn't like T-shirts as they were too casual for the office. Our guy suggested golf shirts instead.
But no-one could agree and the "team shirt" debate continued, steadily becoming more serious, over the next few years.
One day, out of the blue, the manager arrives with boxes and starts handing out team golf shirts. I was impressed.
Not only were they nice-looking, but they were decent quality.
He says everyone should wear their shirts the next day at our monthly all-hands meeting, to show team unity.
At the meeting we're all kidding each other about how cool we look in our team shirts. Then the VP stands up and
tells us the project has been cancelled. Effective immediately.
Some of the people there had been hired two (I kid you not - TWO) days before. They looked like they had been sucker
punched right there...
It's now three years since I left and the problem the project was meant to resolve has still not been fixed. Business
is steadily declining as a result.
My shirt still looks sharp though.
===
During college I worked in a call center providing customer service for satellite TV customers that had purchased
an extended warranty.
At first I worked in customer service, and had to explain to customers things like, "No, of course the Protection
Plan doesn't cover that. If high winds blow your dish out of alignment, that's covered, but if high winds blow a tree
into your dish, which knocks it out of alignment, then that's an act of God, and is not covered." Many customers didn't
seem to understand the concept of a "limited warranty" and complained, "But they told me it would be covered... blah
blah blah." The fact was we charged $75 for service calls unless the fault was expressly covered by the warranty.
Later, due to a staff shortage, I ended up being cross-trained, and was shown the actual sales script we read to
the customers: "From electrical to mechanical failure, you can rest safely knowing that you're covered by the Protection
Plan. You will never pay for a service call or replacement part again, because you're already covered!"
I then understood why they separated the two jobs.
===
I was a golden-girl director of a department in a southern conservative corporation until, much to my surprise, a
man with no qualifications even near mine was promoted over me to run my department. This was a man I had just a year
ago helped "get ahead" and even coached on his salary negotiations. When I asked my boss why he was promoted over me
I was told because I had "a bad attitude." When I calmly asked for specific examples none could be provided. One was
lamely offered up as a reason but was quickly proved to be incorrect.
Alas, the guy moved up over me and I quietly went about my job of being the one actually running the department when
I found out that he had be secretly meeting with one of my employees about splitting the department and giving the younger
guy half my employees. The younger guy came and told me about this because he was so upset about it going on behind
my back. He and I decided to together to talk to our new boss about it. The new boss then wrote us a threatening and
nasty email.
I then met with the HR Director after that to ask for his advice and he questioned my integrity and threatened my
employment (mind you, I had a stellar record prior to this). I later found out my new boss and this HR Director were
buddies and good friends and had also been talking about this behind my back and my fate was pretty much sealed regardless
of what I did. They were both soon promoted to VPs. I soon resigned my position and now I make more money working for
myself.
===
A friend of mine who I'll call "David" was bullied by another teacher in his department for many years. Although
David was highly qualified and had a great rapport with his students, this other staff member continually made negative
comments about him behind his back and ridiculed anything he did.
At first David tried to shrug this off, even when students began telling him that she was calling him an idiot in
her class. She also began using David's title ("Head Teacher") at open days and when introducing herself.
After some years, David finally complained to the head of the department, but he was completely dismissive. So David
began to keep a diary to show that he was the target of this teacher's negative campaign.
He saw a counsellor, who was shocked at what the diary revealed and encouraged David to take the issue to the school
CEO. The CEO listened carefully and began an investigation (things were looking up at last!), but as the issue grew
larger than he could reasonably handle, he ended up telling David to simply "take it like a man."
David had a type of mini breakdown, to the point where he says he can not recall a five hour period from that day,
although he can remember the uncontrollable sobbing with the counsellor for an hour and a half.
1. An individual’s life belongs to himself. 2. Physical force is not a proper way to deal with others. 3. The
proper purpose of government is to protect individuals from force or fraud. Are these the principles of “assholes”
or immature undergraduates? I think not.
————-
Sociopath could not care less about those assumed “rights” and research has shown that both the political and business
worlds are run by a slew of them.
The fog of war is a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants
in military operations.[1] The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding
own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign. The term is
ascribed to the Prussian military analyst
Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:
"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent,
be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently—like the effect of a fog or moonshine—gives to things
exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."[2]
The term may also be a reference to the use of black powder
in warfare, which often produced clouds of thick "fog", obscuring the battlefield from observers.
I would have argued that a bank or any corporation cannot be good or evil since thay are not people. The SCOTUS
says differently.
I recently found this regarding Evil. I think It describe these people perfectly.
Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist , Nuremberg trails Submitted
by questministries… on February 5, 2009 – 2:26am.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching
for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic
that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.
Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
Quotation: Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg
trails
On the other hand is a bank or corporation capable of an emotion? Such as Empathy.
EllenD:
Ordinarily in a skilled occupation (medicine, banking?), the community polices itself to avoid runaways from
tainting the entire profession.
I don’t think the oligarchs for the most part are lacking in empathy; I think it takes considerable ability to
“read” other people and gauge your actions accordingly in order to succeed in business. Even members of urban gangs
succeed according to their ability to empathize. Then, however, there is the ability to “compartmentalize,” a word
I learned in regard to Bill Clinton, the great compartmentalizer. You empathize in private, and wield your sword,
figuratively, when fighting.
The oligarchs, I suspect, do not believe that there is really room in the world for all to flourish (someone
posted something along those lines here; is there limitation worked into equations that squeeze profits out of plain
paper?), and therefore oligarchical sanity depends on limiting the circle among whom they extend their empathy.
In the Jim Crow South, plenty of Ku Klux Klan types were upstanding, ethical, empathic sorts, but they excluded
people of color from the circle of their empathy. Soldiers at war also compartmentalize.
It’s interesting how our elected politicians maneuver, however, deriving campaign funds from the oligarchs, but
deriving votes from the non-oligarchs. Each side would be the skunk at the party of the other these days, unless
careful etiquette were understood, that etiquette being (in my corner of this country) chiefly to keep out of each
other’s space.
A debate would be a carefully controlled encounter, and one would retire to a sort of contrived anonymity once
concluded.
Basically, I don’t think the banker echelon believes a broadly-based inclusive community (including them) would
really work (not enough basic necessities to go around? no cooperative spirit of sacrifice to get where needed?)
(Say what?). Hence the pope-mobile idea.
James Gornick:
Far-fetched Jack54 but, I appreciate your wit and comments, thank you : – )
In keeping on the Scotus theme…
“What lies in our power to do, lies in our power not to do” (Aristotle). Seems to be the mystery the invites
the very nature of Evil’s empty compassion and absence of empathy to find a hollowed and empty erect body of common
purpose as;
“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit” (Aristotle). For we can not achieve
Good or Excellence as an erect body and soul without passion for the human condition that breeds life, hence the
point of evil and eventual death; this is why,
“It is possible then to fail in many ways…while to succeed is possible only in one way” (Aristotle). As this
is the call made to all that hold the position to be able to make change to the human condition.
I think a good way to end this deep thinking session comes with…
“All men are by nature equal, made all the same earth by one Workman; and however we
deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is poor peasant as the mighty prince” (Plato).
Simply stated, Goldman Sachs, and all the rest are and never will be GODS Bank nor is the Catholic Church for
those wanting to rush in to toss in their two cents.
The Creator defined for all is “I am” or also known as GOD. When man places himself before all the rest, as we
discussed the love, compassion, and empathy part, for your fellow neighbor (man / women “human”) you have the full
definition of evil exposed.
If you are Christian or even if you are not, these are two good theories to live by. The first, greatest commandment
is to love God with all of your heart and soul and the second, to do the same with your neighbor.
From the sounds of the media today, and the continued layers of more covering up. Further folks are going to
be losing their homes and jobs. Looks like the neighbor thing is having a little difficulty these days with the
banking and financial folks; and for that matter, a lot of other industries just not putting people back to work.
To many erect bodies putting profits first and not second, though some real great earnings are coming so far as
reported these fist couple of weeks. Look at what came across the wires from Apple and others tonight reinforces
even more the reason for this post tonight.
God bless…
Far-fetched, Not anymore…
James Gornick
William
James: A very good post! I think your post is getting at the root of how and why individuals, human beings functioning
as bankers who are God’s creations, have been able to do what they have done for a very long time. Especially being
the epicenter of the housing bubble and collapse. The bankers have certainly not had empathy for all those affected
by their actions. Your quote from Plato bears repeating:
“All men are by nature equal, made all the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear
unto God is poor peasant as the mighty prince” (Plato).
Those entrusted with such an important function, such as investment banking, would better serve us and themselves
if their actions where God-centered.
There was a study a while back. The gist of it was that the unsuccessful psychopaths were in prison. The successful
psychopaths were highly successful businessmen. This was before the GFC. It’s possible that many of the corporate
looters are psychopaths who haven’t gotten caught or punished.
“The finance community has other elements in common with cults. One is the implicit and explicit reinforcement
of bankers’ “specialness,” their elite status.”
———————————————————
That is not unique to finance. You’ll find that in almost any large business, especiallly top management.
The problem may have started in finance, but it is now everywhere.
Alexandra Hamiltons:
“But the firms are white-collar sweatshops with glamorous trappings. You do not know how hard you can work,
short of slavery, unless you have been an investment banking analyst or associate. It is not merely the hours, but
the extreme and unrelenting time pressure. Priorities are revised every day, numerous times during the day, as markets
move.”
——————————————————-
Sounds like permanent ‘hell week’ to me. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navytrng/a/sealhellweek.htm
However, Navy Seals only do this 5.5 days in their training, while employees nowadays have to put up with this constantly
over several years.
Bringing you to your breaking point is intentional.
Everyone will crack sooner or later and either leave and possible carry away psychological scars from this, like
PTSD or such, or (s)he might become brainwashed and accept the value system and start acting like them, namely like
a psychopath. Like it or not the business environment is psychopatic in nature.
MacroStrategy:
See definition below. Fits to a T the mold of many (not all) I met and knew in the Wall Street world, especially
the “intraspecies predator” part.
Not trying to demonize these people – but this was the role, the character mold, that many of the best and the
brightest in this country and elsewhere were drawn to (given the monetary reward, which is what we’re all here for,
right?)and groomed for (in elite MBA schools, etc.)
It is truly sick and twisted, and history is unlikely to be kind to this last 30-40 year rule of finanzkapital
uber alles and its wrecking ball form of global capitalism.
And Jones, I think you are dead right and have hit on a crucial insight which we best hammer home soon. As the
LibertAustrians start waving their snake flags high on the way to victory in the midterm elections, demand that
they defend all their John Galt’s on Wall Street.
The predator state, as Jamie Galbraith put it in a recent book, is not the only predatory institution out there.
There clearly were other predators working close to the heart of their beloved free market, who for all intents
and purposes corrupting and eroding all the rules of the game and social practices that would keep anything resembling
a free market intact.
Hy Minsky used to say, it’s like the label on Heinz ketchup says: there are 57 flavors of capitalism. This one
leaves a decidedly foul, rancid taste in the mouth…while it rots you from the inside out. Time to head back to the
kitchen and try a different recipe altogether.
Psychopathy ( ) is a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy. Robert Hare, a researcher in the
field describes psychopaths as “intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation,
sex and violence to control others and to satisfy their own selfish needs. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath
scraping_by:
Calling this mindset sociopathology is spot on. It’s a common disease in this country,
mostly infecting the jobs involving expensive wardrobes and obscure vocabulary. One of the ways you can
see this is a current example and how it relates to law.
The Lehman report reveals an act with Repos that was certainly an attempt to defraud. Yet, the report calls the
deception “colorable” rather than unlawful, a fraud that’s only a fraud against, oh, someone somewhere. Not something
that would send people to jail, rather something that should be settled by civil lawsuits. Lots of civil lawsuits,
requiring lots of hours of legal work by lots of highly-paid lawyers. One notes in passing this was a report by
lawyers, but that may not have relevance.
The relevance is that instead of public officials defending the public, we have private individuals settling
things among themselves. From honest finance being a public good, it’s now just a civil arrangement. You can’t expect
anything, since it’s all negotiable before and after you say yes. Hand over your money and take what they give you.
Both as an individual and as the state.
The danger is that the descent from public law to civil law will keep going. Getting to private law, like the
Open Carry wackos, is no longer so wacky.
blunt :
Neibuhr, no doubt, is helpful in understanding the mindset behind the crisis and its aftermath.
But perhaps more in tune with the overall conduct before, during and now would be a stroll through Hannah Arendt’s
“Eichmann In Jerusalem.”
I was forcefully struck by the ways in which the various unnamed characters in this piece were reminiscent of
Arendt’s views of Eichmann and of the culpability of the victims, in some respects, to enabling the horrors.
Surely, nothing could argue more forcefully for “the banality of evil” or the discovery
that these people are not any different than the mass of us when we are, like Eichmann, eternal joiners of average
intelligence who when we join the “right” group manage to believe we lose all volitional response to any situation.
Arendt was spot on. Such behaviors were not simply confined to Nazi Germany, but are
a part of the human repertoire, available to any of us given the opportunity.
I find myself feeling a copmpassion for the fools, knowing that given a certain mindset, I could as well be one
of them.
Still, to follow Arendt’s justification for Eichmann’s, that more normal than normal man, execution: since they,
the traders and brokers, see no reason that they should share the world with us, then we should see no reason to
share the world with them.
Justice and a reminder to us all that we could be them and to reinforce the lesson maybe a few public executions
would not come amiss. Certainly there’s need for seizures of whatever gains they’ve acquired through the banality
of their regimentation.
Tom Crowl:
Fantastic article and overview of the culture of Wall Street and it’s unfortunate evolution.
Paradoxically, much of this arises as a consequence of biological altruism’s dysfunction in scaled societies…
Which is why we need regulations and oversight…
A couple of brief posts on these issues if interested:
One of the core tenets of modernism is that social intelligence can be imparted to the masses and that this
enhanced social intelligence will result in greater social justice.
This concept is totally modern. Before the advent of modernism such thoughts were unheard of.
————————————————————
Thanks for your great post. This concept is not modern, however. It is thousands of years old. Just to name a
few: the New Testament and the Qu’ran, among others. The struggle is still the same, but has different names.
About the Greeks: Some time ago, I think I noticed something. Have you ever tried to analyse the personality
types of the greek gods? The are amazingly pathological.
I think, the Greeks were aware of what those rather human “gods” actually described and thus were rather reserved
about worshipping them. However, the Romans – which had the same gods under different names – acutally believed
in this.They semm to have gone full tilt basing their society and ideals on those personality types.
2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors
and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious
early morning car crash in Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral transgressions by powerful figures
in political, business and celebrity circles. New research from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University
explores why powerful people - many of whom take a moral high ground - don't practice what they preach.
Researchers sought to determine whether power inspires hypocrisy, the tendency to hold high
standards for others while performing morally suspect behaviors oneself. The research finds that power makes
people stricter in moral judgment of others - while being less strict of their own behavior.
The research was conducted by Joris Lammers and Diederik A. Stapel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and
by Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. The article will appear
in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science.
"This research is especially relevant to the biggest scandals of 2009, as we look back on how private behavior often
contradicted the public stance of particular individuals in power," said Galinsky, the Morris and Alice Kaplan Professor
of Ethics and Decision in Management at the Kellogg School. "For instance, we saw some politicians use public funds
for private benefits while calling for smaller government, or have extramarital affairs while advocating family values.
Similarly, we witnessed CEOs of major financial institutions accepting executive bonuses while simultaneously asking
for government bailout money on behalf of their companies."
"According to our research, power and influence can cause a severe disconnect between public judgment and private
behavior, and as a result, the powerful are stricter in their judgment of others while being more lenient toward their
own actions," he continued.
To simulate an experience of power, the researchers assigned roles of high-power and low-power positions to a group
of study participants. Some were assigned the role of prime minister and others civil servant. The participants were
then presented with moral dilemmas related to breaking traffic rules, declaring taxes, and returning a stolen bike.
Through a series of five experiments, the researchers examined the impact of power on moral hypocrisy. For example,
in one experiment the "powerful" participants condemned the cheating of others while cheating more themselves. High-power
participants also tended to condemn over-reporting of travel expenses. But, when given a chance to cheat on a dice game
to win lottery tickets (played alone in the privacy of a cubicle), the powerful people reported winning a higher amount
of lottery tickets than did low-power participants.
Three additional experiments further examined the degree to which powerful people accept their own moral transgressions
versus those committed by others. In all cases, those assigned to high-power roles showed significant moral hypocrisy
by more strictly judging others for speeding, dodging taxes and keeping a stolen bike, while finding it more acceptable
to engage in these behaviors themselves.
Galinsky noted that moral hypocrisy has its greatest impact among people who are legitimately powerful. In contrast,
a fifth experiment demonstrated that people who don't feel personally entitled to their power are actually harder on
themselves than they are on others, which is a phenomenon the researchers dubbed "hypercrisy." The tendency to be harder
on the self than on others also characterized the powerless in multiple studies.
"Ultimately, patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy perpetuate social inequality. The powerful impose rules and restraints
on others while disregarding these restraints for themselves, whereas the powerless collaborate in reproducing social
inequality because they don't feel the same entitlement," Galinsky concluded.
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further
demoralize them? Has such a demoralization happened in the United States?
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity
in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
Can anything be done to turn this around?
Can people become so broken that truths of how they are being screwed do not "set them free" but instead further
demoralize them?
Yes. It is called the "abuse syndrome." How do abusive pimps, spouses, bosses, corporations, and governments stay
in control? They shove lies, emotional and physical abuses, and injustices in their victims' faces, and when victims
are afraid to exit from these relationships, they get weaker. So the abuser then makes their victims eat even more lies,
abuses, and injustices, resulting in victims even weaker as they remain in these relationships.
Does knowing the truth of their abuse set people free when they are deep in these abuse syndromes?
No. For victims of the abuse syndrome, the truth of their passive submission to humiliating oppression is more than
embarrassing; it can feel shameful -- and there is nothing more painful than shame. When one already feels beaten down
and demoralized, the likely response to the pain of shame is not constructive action, but more attempts to shut down
or divert oneself from this pain. It is not likely that the truth of one's humiliating oppression is going to energize
one to constructive actions.
Has such a demoralization happened in the U.S.?
In the United States, 47 million people are without health insurance, and many millions more are underinsured or
a job layoff away from losing their coverage. But despite the current sellout by their elected officials to the insurance
industry, there is no outpouring of millions of U.S. citizens on the streets of Washington, D.C., protesting this betrayal.
Polls show that the majority of Americans oppose U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the taxpayer bailout
of the financial industry, yet only a handful of U.S. citizens have protested these circumstances.
Remember the 2000 U.S. presidential election? That's the one in which Al Gore received 500,000 more votes than George
W. Bush. That's also the one that the Florida Supreme Court's order for a recount of the disputed Florida vote was overruled
by the U.S. Supreme Court in a politicized 5-4 decision, of which dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens remarked: "Although
we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity
of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of
law." Yet, even this provoked few demonstrators.
When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more
truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is
one more way we become even more psychologically broken.
U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive
spouses: They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don't act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with
the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shut-down mode and use escape strategies
such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle
of all abuse syndromes.
Do some totalitarians actually want us to hear how we have been screwed because they know that humiliating passivity
in the face of obvious oppression will demoralize us even further?
Maybe.
Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, millions of Americans saw a clip of George W. Bush joking to
a wealthy group of people, "What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves-more. Some people call you the elite; I call
you my base." Yet, even with these kind of inflammatory remarks, the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who had come
to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.
Perhaps the "political genius" of the Bush-Cheney regime was in their full realization that Americans were so broken
that the regime could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their
faces, the weaker people became.
What forces have created a demoralized, passive, dis-couraged U.S. population?
The U.S. government-corporate partnership has used its share of guns and terror to break Native Americans, labor
union organizers, and other dissidents and activists. But today, most U.S. citizens are broken by financial fears. There
is potential legal debt if we speak out against a powerful authority, and all kinds of other debt if we do not comply
on the job. Young people are broken by college-loan debts and fear of having no health insurance.
The U.S. population is increasingly broken by the social isolation created by corporate-governmental
policies. A 2006 American Sociological Review study ("Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core
Discussion Networks over Two Decades") reported that, in 2004, 25 percent of Americans did
not have a single confidant. (In 1985, 10 percent of Americans reported not having a single confidant.) Sociologist
Robert Putnam, in his 2000 book, Bowling Alone, describes how social connectedness is disappearing in virtually
every aspect of U.S. life. For example, there has been a significant decrease in face-to-face contact with neighbors
and friends due to suburbanization, commuting, electronic entertainment, time and money pressures and other variables
created by governmental-corporate policies. And union activities and other formal or informal ways that people give
each other the support necessary to resist oppression have also decreased.
We are also broken by a corporate-government partnership that has rendered most of us out
of control when it comes to the basic necessities of life, including our food supply. And we, like many other
people in the world, are broken by socializing institutions that alienate us from our basic humanity. A few examples:
Schools and Universities: Do most schools teach young people to be action-oriented -- or to be passive? Do most
schools teach young people that they can affect their surroundings -- or not to bother? Do schools provide examples
of democratic institutions -- or examples of authoritarian ones?
A long list of school critics from Henry David
Thoreau to John Dewey, John Holt, Paul Goodman, Jonathan Kozol, Alfie Kohn, Ivan Illich, and John Taylor Gatto have
pointed out that a school is nothing less than a miniature society: what young people experience in schools is the
chief means of creating our future society. Schools are routinely places where kids -- through fear -- learn to
comply to authorities for whom they often have no respect, and to regurgitate material they often find meaningless.
These are great ways of breaking someone.
Today, U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly become places where young people are merely acquiring
degree credentials -- badges of compliance for corporate employers -- in exchange for learning to accept bureaucratic
domination and enslaving debt.
Mental Health Institutions: Aldous Huxley predicted today's pharmaceutical societyl "[I]t seems to me perfectly
in the cards," he said, "that there will be within the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making
people love their servitude."
Today, increasing numbers of people in the U.S. who do not comply with authority
are being diagnosed with mental illnesses and medicated with psychiatric drugs that make them less pained about
their boredom, resentments, and other negative emotions, thus rendering them more compliant and manageable.
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is an increasingly popular diagnosis for children
and teenagers. The official symptoms of ODD include, "often actively defies or refuses to comply with
adult requests or rules," and "often argues with adults." An even more common reaction to oppressive authorities
than the overt defiance of ODD is some type of passive defiance -- for example, attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD). Studies show that virtually all children diagnosed with ADHD will pay attention to activities that
they actually enjoy or that they have chosen. In other words, when ADHD-labeled kids are having a good time and
in control, the "disease" goes away.
When human beings feel too terrified and broken to actively protest, they may stage a "passive-aggressive revolution"
by simply getting depressed, staying drunk, and not doing anything -- this is one reason why the Soviet empire crumbled.
However, the diseasing/medicalizing of rebellion and drug "treatments" have weakened the power of even this passive-aggressive
revolution.
Television: In his book Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television (1978), Jerry Mander (after
reviewing totalitarian critics such as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Jacques Ellul, and Ivan Illich) compiled a
list of the "Eight Ideal Conditions for the Flowering of Autocracy."
Mander claimed that television helps create
all eight conditions for breaking a population. Television, he explained, (1) occupies people so that they don't
know themselves -- and what a human being is; (2) separates people from one another; (3) creates sensory deprivation;
(4) occupies the mind and fills the brain with prearranged experience and thought; (5) encourages drug use to dampen
dissatisfaction (while TV itself produces a drug-like effect, this was compounded in 1997 the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration relaxing the rules of prescription-drug advertising); (6) centralizes knowledge and information;
(7) eliminates or "museumize" other cultures to eliminate comparisons; and (8) redefines happiness and the meaning
of life.
Commericalism of Damn Near Everything: While spirituality, music, and cinema can be revolutionary forces, the
gross commercialization of all of these has deadened their capacity to energize rebellion. So now, damn near everything
– not just organized religion -- has become "opiates of the masses."
The primary societal role of U.S. citizens
is no longer that of "citizen" but that of "consumer." While citizens know that buying and selling within community
strengthens that community and that this strengthens democracy, consumers care only about the best deal. While citizens
understand that dependency on an impersonal creditor is a kind of slavery, consumers get excited with credit cards
that offer a temporarily low APR.
Consumerism breaks people by devaluing human connectedness, socializing self-absorption, obliterating self-reliance,
alienating people from normal human emotional reactions, and by selling the idea that purchased products -- not
themselves and their community -- are their salvation.
Can anything be done to turn this around?
When people get caught up in humiliating abuse syndromes, more truths about their oppressive humiliations don't set
them free. What sets them free is morale.
What gives people morale? Encouragement. Small victories. Models of courageous behaviors. And anything that helps
them break out of the vicious cycle of pain, shut down, immobilization, shame over immobilization, more pain, and more
shut down.
The last people I would turn to for help in remobilizing a demoralized population are mental health professionals
-- at least those who have not rebelled against their professional socialization. Much of the craft of relighting the
pilot light requires talents that mental health professionals simply are not selected for nor are they trained in. Specifically,
the talents required are a fearlessness around image, spontaneity, and definitely anti-authoritarianism. But these are
not the traits that medical schools or graduate schools select for or encourage.
Mental health professionals' focus on symptoms and feelings often create patients who take themselves and their moods
far too seriously. In contrast, people talented in the craft of maintaining morale resist this kind of self-absorption.
For example, in the question-and-answer session that followed a Noam Chomsky talk (reported in Understanding Power:
The Indispensable Chomsky, 2002), a somewhat demoralized man in the audience asked Chomsky if he too ever went through
a phase of hopelessness. Chomsky responded, "Yeah, every evening . . ."
If you want to feel hopeless, there are a lot of things you could feel hopeless about. If you want to sort of work
out objectively what's the chance that the human species will survive for another century, probably not very high. But
I mean, what's the point? . . . First of all, those predictions don't mean anything -- they're more just a reflection
of your mood or your personality than anything else. And if you act on that assumption, then you're guaranteeing that'll
happen. If you act on the assumption that things can change, well, maybe they will. Okay, the only rational choice,
given those alternatives, is to forget pessimism."
A major component of the craft of maintaining morale is not taking the advertised reality too seriously. In the early
1960s, when the overwhelming majority in the U.S. supported military intervention in Vietnam, Chomsky was one of a minority
of U.S. citizens actively opposing it. Looking back at this era, Chomsky reflected, "When I got involved in the anti-Vietnam
War movement, it seemed to me impossible that we would ever have any effect. . . So looking back, I think my
evaluation of the 'hope' was much too pessimistic: it was based on a complete misunderstanding. I was sort of believing
what I read."
An elitist assumption is that people don't change because they are either ignorant of their problems or ignorant
of solutions. Elitist "helpers" think they have done something useful by informing overweight people that they are obese
and that they must reduce their caloric intake and increase exercise. An elitist who has never been broken by his or
her circumstances does not know that people who have become demoralized do not need analyses and pontifications. Rather
the immobilized need a shot of morale.
In regards to the Alternet article, isn’t that the very reason why conservatives hate people like Martin Luther
King and Marx so much? Are not their philosophies, after all, what gave oppressed peoples not only the intellectual
framework to question their oppressors’ rationales, but also the hope necessary to rise up against those oppressors.
Conservatives embrace an assumedly “natural” distinction of rich and poor. The revolutionaries, on the other
hand, embrace a notion that men are born or created equal and become unequal by virtue of social and political,
that is man-made, institutions.
As Hannah Arendt observed in On Revolution:
Marx’s transformation of the social question into a political force is contained in the term ‘exploitation’,
that is, in the notion that poverty is the result of exploitation through a ‘ruling class’ which is in the possession
of the means of violence… If Marx helped in liberating the poor, then it was not by telling them that they were
the living embodiments of some historical or other necessity, but by persuading them that poverty itself is a political,
not a natural phenomenon, the result of violence and violation rather than of scarcity.
Likewise, MLK didn’t buy into the conservative conviction that blacks are created inferior by virtue of the color
of their skin, making their inferior status “natural.”
As to engendering hope, MLK led people to believe that God is on the side of justice. The secular Marx, on the
other hand, espoused an inexorable historical dialectic process that was equally as unstoppable as MLK’s divinity.
And both MLK as well as the followers of Marx argued that it was incumbent upon the oppressed, and not their
oppressors, to bring about change.
For an excellent encapsulation of the socialist doctrine, there is probably no better place to look than chapters
28 and 29 of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle:
And so all over the world two classes were forming, with an unabridged chasm between them—the capitalist class,
with its enormous fortunes, and the proletariat, bound into slavery by unseen chains. The latter were a thousand
to one in numbers, but they were ignorant and helpless, and they would remain at the mercy of the exploiters until
they organized…
Personally, I believe it is nonsensical to argue that today’s American middle class is more beaten down and demoralized
than blacks or Hispanics were during Jim Crow, or workers were during the days of Upton Sinclair.
I read my first management book at the age of 11, not because it was a management book, but a best seller at the
time, And it may have been imprinted by it more than I realized. The Peter Principle says that managers are promoted
until they reach their level of incompetence. The classic example is promoting the best salesman to be a sales manager.
The joke (all too true) is that you both lose your best salesman and gain a lousy supervisor.
That pattern says that organizations as a whole are not very capable (if they
recognize this danger, they should try to manage against it, but the popularity of The Peter Principle did not change
corporate practice one jot, at least as far as I can tell). And of course, it explains why there are so many crappy
managers and executives.
Financial institutions diversify into their level of incompetence. They extend their scope into activities they
understand less...
The principle of diversification into incompetence applies from the largest financial institution
to the smallest. AIG was America’s leading insurance company. The company did not just undertake credit insurance,
but was the largest trader in the credit default swap market. That is how its financial products group, employing
120 people in London, brought about the collapse of a business that employed 120,000.
Yves here. Citigroup is another example. It isn't so much that Citi made a disastrous acquisition as it dedicated itself
to massive reach as a corporate imperative: be as global and be in every conceivable product niche. That is a prescription
for being unable to manage yourself, which is the essence of the big bank's problems. Back to Kay:
The boredom factor is important. Much of traditional banking is quite boring. The desire to find new challenges
is an admirable human trait. It is, however, very expensive for shareholders to allow their chief executives to
indulge it.
Public sector bodies are usually constrained in their activities, so deregulation is often a trigger
for expensive experimentation. In Britain, many of the efficiency gains from privatisation were squandered in diversification:
I watched senior managers spending 80 per cent of their time on activities that generated 1 per cent of turnover
and minus 10 per cent of profit. But it is more fun to go on jollies to Buenos Aires than to fix leaking pipes.
To win an auction when you don’t know what you are bidding for is often to lose. This winner’s curse is often
behind bad acquisitions because the successful purchaser is the bidder most willing to pay too much. Hence the contest
between Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays as to which bank would court bankruptcy by buying ABN Amro. Ignorance
of products may also be a problem. When you are the newcomer and know little, the business that gravitates to you
will be the business no one else wants.
But the driving factor is hubris. Jim Collins’s well-timed study of How the Mighty Fall applies to every business
I have mentioned. The financial services industry is particularly vulnerable to hubris because sections of it are
not very competitive, and randomness plays a large role in the outcome of speculative transactions. It is therefore
particularly easy for those who work in financial institutions to make the mistake of believing that their success
is the result of exceptional skill rather than good fortune. What more natural to believe than that extraordinary
talent will find pots of gold under other rainbows? Until vanity is vanquished, I anticipate that diversification
to the level of incompetence will continue to be a powerful element in business behaviour.
With all due respect, I think Kay has the essence of this wrong. First, deals are engrossing and sexy. They are very
intense, the top executives are the focus of Big Decisions, and they have a horde of high priced talent catering to
them (well actually, leading them by the nose, but they are usually so adept at it that the client often does not realize
he is no longer in control).
But the big driver is that bank CEO pay is correlated with the
size of the institution. And it is much easier to get big fast by acquisition than organically. Big deals
are a wallet-lining activity, and the advisors understand that very well.
13 comments:
attempter :
I don't doubt Yves is right about the top-down influence, but I think there's also something to the boredom
argument.
It's long seemed to me that e.g where it comes to computers and gadgets in general that the engineers
seem to want to tinker and gratuitously change things and add superfluous features all way beyond what customers
want, and even where it doesn't add to revenue (rent-seeking).
The designers have a fundamentally different, non-market mindset. A customer probably just wants a basic product
that functions well, but for the engineer this is his toy, his "creative outlet."
I long suspected this, and recently I've started seeing pieces which agree with me, like in some of the NYT tech
columns.
So I don't doubt there may be something similar going on with financial "engineering", although there of course
the rent-seeking is a far greater motive.
Like in the Military Kill Ratios or Counts get you noticed, promoted because its a sexy statistic (see Vietnam).
Not consolidation of ones position in order to blunt the oppositions maneuver (see victory with out death).
skippy..."A
solider will fight long and hard for a bit of ribbon" Napoleon Bonaparte.
The problem is not just the organization, but self-selection and the process involved in getting to the top.
They choose for risk-taking personalities for whom boredom is a serious issue - and who have a serious bias towards
action over inaction, risk-taking over safety, etc.
I once had the CFO of a very large corporation tell me that, if I could tell him that he had a 50/50 chance of
keeping the assets he wanted to acquire -- a coin toss -- he would go ahead with the merger.
We have reached a point where our idea of who is executive material involves a macho type who conflates decisiveness
with risk-taking, when really they are two different things. Just my opinion.
This is evidence as to why classical economics and all its begats--Marxism, libertarianism, neo-liberalism,
etc---are all failed ideologies. All are predicated on the assumption that man is motivated solely by materialistic
objectives, or, as Reinhold Niebuhr put it, "all human desires are determinate and all human ambitions ordinate."
As Niebuhr goes on to explain in The Irony of American History:
The false abstraction of "economic man" remains a permanent defect in all bourgeois-liberal ideology. It seems
to know nothing of what Thomas Hobbes termed "the continual competition for honor and dignity" in human affairs.
It understands neither the traditional ethnic and cultural loyalties which qualify a consistent economic rationalism;
nor the deep and complex motives in the human psyche which express themselves in the desire for "power and glory."
All the conflicts in human society involving passions and ambitions, hatreds and loves, envies and ideals not recorded
in the market place, are beyond the comprehension of the typical bourgeios ethos.
Or as George Orwell put it:
The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions--racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief,
love of war--which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed
so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.
Orwell uses H.G. Wells as the poster child of a failed bourgeois-liberal ideologue:
He was, and still is, quite incapable of understanding that nationalism, religious bigotry and feudal loyalty
are far more powerful forces than what he himself would describe as sanity. Creatures out of the Dark Ages have
come marching into the present, and if they are ghosts they are at any rate ghosts which need a strong magic to
lay them. The people who have shown the best understanding of Fascism are either those who have suffered under it
or those who have a Fascist streak in themselves. A crude book like "The Iron Heel,' written nearly thirty years
ago, is a truer prophecy of the future than either "Brave New World" or "The Shape of Things to Come." If one had
to choose among Well's own contemporaries a writer who could stand towards him as a corrective, one might choose
Kipling, who was not deaf to the evil voices of power and military "glory."
--George Orwell, "Wells, Hitler and the World State"
To synthesize the comments of both DownSouth and Siggy, non-financial incentives are crucial to much of the
world, just not to those who run it.
Another problem with management beyond the Peter Principle is the self-selection
bias. It is exactly those who seek the levels of upper management of the large companies, especially the position
of CEO, who are the most likely to exhibit antisocial personality disorder. It is rare that a non-sociopath will
have a competitive advantage over a sociopath in rising up the corporate ranks to the top. To wit...
"Profile of the Sociopath
* Grandiose Sense of Self. Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." Extreme narcissism. Can create,
and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Believe they are all-knowing, entitled
to every wish. May state readily that their goal is to be a mogul, rule the world.
* Need for Stimulation Living on the edge. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
* Incapacity for Love Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim; incapable of real human attachment to
another
* Superficial Charm and conventional appearance Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them; only rarely
in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned,
or admired
* Manipulative and Conning They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as
permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely
an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
* Seeks Affirmation to Create Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and
therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love); Does not see others around them as people,
but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims.
* Irresponsibility/Unreliability Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent
to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously
committed."
I had a psychologist friend who believed the same as you, that those with anti-social personality
disorder are disproportionately drawn to and well-suited to positions of power. But he insisted upon one caveat,
and that is that human behavioral types are distributed along continua and not in discrete categories. Probably
nowhere is this better demonstrated than in the findings of Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, who developed a seven-point
scale (0-6) to indicate degrees of homosexuality-heterosexuality.
We could do the same with type of behavior you describe. A person with the characteristics you enumerate we could
define as a 0, and a person, let's say, who is kind, generous, compassionate and caring we could call a 6. I think
it goes without saying that a 4, 5 or 6 would be totally inappropriate as a modern corporate executive. But when
we get 0's in positions of power, we have a problem.
As to your comment that "non-financial incentives are crucial to much of the world, just not to those who run
it," I have to disagree. Being an engineer by training and a reformed "pragmatic jewell," as an art-dealer friend
of mine used to call me, I once believed the same as you do.
However, if those who "run the world" do not respond to non-financial incentives, then how do you explain this?:
"Mexican splashes out record $140m for Jackson Pollock's drops of genius
1948 work by American master becomes world's most expensive painting"
As the article explains, that's the most expensive painting ever sold, $4 million per square foot for some paint
dribbled (and litterally "dribbled" if you're familiar with the work of Jackson Pollock) on a canvas.
I could write quite a bit about this, as it's common knowledge amongst those who study ancient civilizations
that powerful men have always coveted exclusive objects that convey a sense of prestige, status and rank upon their
owners, and that much human behavior throughout history has been dedicated to acquiring these objects. This behavior
can hardly be described as "rational," and has no place within the classical economic paradigm. And yet there it
is.
I agree with your instinct that most everything is a continuum. I actually believe what people perceive as "bright
lines" are usually much more fuzzy upon closer inspection. You can play this game with anything, even acts as repugnant
as murder and rape. Start pushing anyone with tough fact sets and their "bright lines" quickly blur.
The reason most humans accept a belief in any certain bright line is for economy of thought. It is just a natural
heuristic technique. However, once one accepts that almost everything is a continuum, the world becomes much more
interesting. What is the shape of the continuum? Is it a barbell with little in the middle? Or is it a ball with
sticks on the sides? Or is it evenly distributed across? Or is it irregularly shaped?
But these questions are useless for most of humanity. People become attached to their heuristic methods and often
react in anger when it is suggested that the lines they have drawn could possibly be masking a more complex and
subtle world. So we should probably keep this to ourselves before everyone gets their knives out.
FWIW, I didn't actually promote the "synthesis" as my belief. I was just being "clever" (sarcasm intended). I
think it would be very difficult for anyone to care about nothing but money. In fact, the "0" sociopath would usually
see money as a means, not an end. The end is probably better defined as power, to which money is a very good means.
As you note, lifetimes could be spent writing about this.
I don't believe in the Peter principle. I think companies just promote the managers who suck up best, and then
find out they are only good at sucking up.
Trapped by the interesting post and superb comments, thinking about reading more of J. London,
and at the same time realizing that we are talking the talk while they walk... Away with our money!
Belonging to clubs like the Augusta National and landing the corporate jet there a couple hours after a break
in the February weather doesn't require much money because the Master's tournament pays the bills tax free and you
can meet with all your CEO buddies and strategize with no gossipy women around. These are the non$ perks that any
and all bankers will bow down to their bosses for, just to keep the hope alive....
"The boredom factor is important. Much of traditional banking is quite boring. The desire to find new challenges
is an admirable human trait. It is, however, very expensive for shareholders to allow their chief executives to
indulge it."
AMBAC comes to mind as a case example. Here was the corporation who had the most net profit per employee
on the PLANET. But the business was a bore; mix that with the side effects of a testosterone-based culture and danger
signals should've started to flash all over the place.
How grandiosity and lack of empathy created our modern malaise
Narcissism is back in the news, thanks to Sarah Palin.
Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair profile,
which appeared just days before Palin announced her resignation, described the Alaskan governor this way:
More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin's extravagant
self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of "narcissistic
personality disorder" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—"a pervasive pattern of
grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy"—and thought it fit her perfectly.
The diagnosis clearly resonates, not because it is accurate (who knows?) but because narcissism is the psychological
substrate of our troubled times. During the credit boom, an unquenchable need for short-term success, combined with
a lack of empathy for those who didn't share in the economic windfalls, was a byproduct of a society trying desperately
to survive beyond its means. We both empowered the most ruthlessly self-aggrandizing among us and succumbed to the erosion
of any authority that might have contained the overweening. We lost any independent measure of the American dream.
Still, a question remains: Was the army of narcissists unleashed upon our society a product of the boom or the cause
of it—or both? For John Gartner, grandiosity was a precondition for success. His 2005 book
The Hypomanic Edge praised the reckless abandon of Americans who leapt before they looked. (Slate's Dan
Gross made a great case for why those leaders ultimately threaten the institutions
they lead.)
In the noughties—given our obsessing over celebrities, insatiable consumption of debt to keep up with others, and
the loss of any meaningful values that might sustain us in adversity—the country seemed to be caught up in its own culture
of narcissism. As exceptional as this new culture was, it was not new. The culture of narcissism first appeared as a
popular concept 30 years ago. And this week marks the apogee of its influence with the anniversary of President Jimmy
Carter's infamous "malaise" speech (delivered on July 15, 1979).
That much-reviled address is an unlikely subject for study. But historian Kevin Mattson has done his best to reclaim
it in his new book
What the Heck Are You Up to, Mr. President?To Mattson, a desperate nation, hobbled by a stagnating economy
with chronic energy shortages, a crumbling manufacturing sector, and crippling inflation, was buoyed by Carter's willingness
to level with them. Carter tried to snap the country out of its frenzy of selfishness and return it to a civic-minded
purpose. The speech boosted the president's poll numbers by 11 points in one evening, and the event seemed to provide
a catharsis of sorts, if a short-lived one.
The 1970s were a nadir of American self-confidence. Carter came to give the "malaise" speech at the prodding of Patrick
Caddell, who was himself inspired by a reading of historian Christopher Lasch's surprise best-seller of 1979,
The Culture of Narcissism. A quiet Midwesterner with a cranky pen, Lasch was the Paul Krugman of 1979 — an esoteric
thinker whose political stance was informed by raw anger and disgust. Lasch may have used radical cultural concepts
to inform his views, but he himself was deeply and personally conservative. He would later write a book dismissing the
notion of progress and locating our best hope as a society in small-town acceptance of limitations.
The Culture of Narcissism was an attack not only on the excesses and disillusionment of the '70s but also
on the growth of institutions—the liberal state, corporations, and the therapeutic culture—that broke down the individual's
independence and authority. Those institutions may have grown out of a need to protect us from depredations. But the
unintended consequence was to replace our freedom and individual authority with insecurity and anxiety.
Thus was born the narcissistic personality of the 1970s. The cultural narcissist—as opposed to the clinical one,
like Palin—can overcome the anxiety created by his or her lost economic and social independence, according to Lasch,
only "by seeing his ‘grandiose self' reflected in the attentions of others, or by attaching himself to those who radiate
celebrity, power, and charisma. For the narcissist, the world is a mirror whereas the rugged individualist saw it as
an empty wilderness to be shaped in his own design."
Narcissism thrives only where positive authority—a world of role models who establish genuine, trusted leadership
and an economic system where rules are defined and enforced—no longer presides. Lasch's narcissism was a direct
result of the hypocrisy of the liberal state and its collapse under the multiple assaults of the Vietnam War, Watergate,
the degraded environment, and the emasculating energy crisis.
In our own day, narcissism seems the direct result not of societal failure but of success run amok. (Though we've
had our own fruitless, frustrating war with its concomitant betrayals of public trust and an awareness of impending
environmental collapse, too.) Beginning in 1994—15 years after the "malaise" speech and 15 years before today—the United
States turned itself inside out. The Republican congressional victory of 1994 brought about a libertarian detente between
left and right centered around globalization, in the form of NAFTA, and cultural truce, where everyone agreed to disagree
on hot-button issues like abortion.
The new order unleashed an explosion of wealth, new technology, and a reinvention of politics both domestically and
internationally. The '90s ended up being the 1970s in reverse. Instead of the decline of industry, we had the upending
explosion of the Internet. Where the 1970s had eroding pessimism, the 1990s had the optimism that "this time, it is
different."
In both cases, the path from past to future was no longer clear, which created confusion and doubt about what rules
to follow. Clinton's new liberalism sought deregulation and a return to personal responsibility, but only one side of
the equation took hold. Throughout American society in the 1990s, authority was eclipsed by the unparalleled success
of young people.
There were other similarities between then and now that contributed to the emergence of the cultural narcissist.
Both eras had presidents who were threatened with impeachment. Both eras had a vertiginous rise in housing prices. In
the 1970s, homes became a rare anchor for embattled Americans as their most important asset became a refuge from rampant
inflation.
For us later, our houses were the devil's candy to satisfy our insatiable needs. Instead of the last and most vital
of our assets—the one protected from bankruptcy by homestead laws in many states—we used property as a grub stake in
a poker match, hoping to win shallow advantages like better-looking kitchens, elaborate home theaters, and more authentic
personal experiences. Each one of these desires fits neatly into the Lasch-ian definition of narcissism: the frantic
need to distinguish ourselves without ever mastering our anxieties.
Lacking her own goals, and an independent measure of success, the narcissistic personality keeps chasing a fleeting
dream. Perhaps that is why the debt bubble churned endlessly without restraint. We had everything, but it was never
enough. Insatiability, of course, is a hallmark symptom.
Another era of adversity might have restored the bulwarks of our society. The excesses of the Internet boom were
burned off in the scandals of Enron, Tyco, and the like. The Sept. 11 attacks also seemed to presage a new era of rationality.
The Bush administration's response, however, was narcissism through and through. A sober response
would have been to track down the malefactors to ensure that justice prevailed. Instead, the neocons in the
Bush Pentagon pursued an unlikely target—Iraq—with the misguided idea that they could transform the politics of the
Middle East through shock and awe. (Grandiose?) They even imagined they would be greeted as liberators. (Admiration
seeking?) And they failed to address the root causes of Sept. 11 attacks: the frustrations felt by the disenfranchised
toward the United States. (Not much empathy there, eh?)
So the flood of credit from 2002 on only fueled the narcissism raging at the center of our society. To read the
Culture of Narcissism today is to look at ourselves through a distant mirror. We have a better communicator as
president, but many of the same maladies confront us—a crippled economy, a recently discredited president whose White
House was filled with dirty-tricksters, and a sense that American power no longer has a place in the world. The only
good thing is that the feeling of desperation so pervasive during Jimmy Carter's time has not taken hold; but that could
be because we just haven't hit bottom yet.
Marion Maneker is the former publisher of HarperCollins's business imprint.
" Labels are just linguistic conveniences that we use to organize reality. We need to keep in mind the continuities
in the real world, the gradations, the way traits gradually differ along a spectrum from one person to another, from ordinary
to extreme."
The roots of all of this are deep and troubling. Aside from the general American ethic of "money talks"--net worth
more important than personal worth--there's a real psychiatric problem.
Psychologists and psychiatrists have learned a few things about what they call "social cognition"--our awareness
of our connections to the people around us. People with normally developed social cognition appear to have attributes
that foster social understanding. For example, they have what psychologists call a "theory of mind"--the ability to
recognize what some person may be thinking from that person's facial expression or from cues related to what that person
is doing or saying. Those with normally developed social cognition also have an attribute called "empathy"--the ability
to imagine or feel the emotions of another person.
Unfortunately, either as a consequence of variant genes or very early environment or an interaction of both genes
and environment, not everyone is operating with a full deck in the social cognition domain.
For example, 30 to 50 percent of all incarcerated criminals in American prisons have measurable problems in social
cognition.
Autistic children have problems in social cognition.
Many psychotics such as schizophrenics have problems in social cognition.
Serial killers have special problems with empathy, although they do have good theory of mind--they excel at reading
people and manipulating them. But lacking empathy, they can kill without batting an eye.
Sociopaths in general usually have social cognition problems, especially with empathy. They are people who feel nothing
when viewing or imagining the pain and suffering of other people.
Most clinical psychologists and psychiatrists use a rating scheme called the Hare Psychopathy Checklist to diagnose
sociopathy (also called psychopathy).
Here are some items on the checklist to detect sociopaths:
Glibness and superficial charm. Grandiose sense of self-worth. Pathological lying. Conning and manipulative behavior.
Lack of remorse or guilt. Lack of empathy. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions.
Yes, we could make a list of politicians and Wall Street scam artists described by the above cluster of traits.
Sociopaths? Labels are just linguistic conveniences that we use to organize reality. We
need to keep in mind the continuities in the real world, the gradations, the way traits gradually differ along a spectrum
from one person to another, from ordinary to extreme.
Not everyone with the traits of a sociopath is a serial killer. Not everyone with the traits of a sociopath is in
prison. Not everyone with the traits of a sociopath is autistic or psychotic.
One can have enough empathy to refrain from homicide, but not enough empathy to refrain
from fraud or political callousness that causes harm to many thousands of people.
So if you want to understand how someone can run the huge scam that was Enron, or how someone can rip $50 billion
out of the pockets of charities and people, many of whom are "friends," or how some people can be callous about a torture
called water-boarding (a "no-brainer," he said), or offer nothing but a shrug when reminded they have caused the death
of thousands--if you want to understand the dynamics of these behaviors it might help to remember the continuum that
runs from ordinary people with empathy to people with no empathy at all.
It seems that's the real America. Or is it? These days it seems we're living in a society
that's a candy store for sociopaths and almost-sociopaths and wannabe-sociopaths.
I don't have a fix. Regulation will help on Wall Street, but it's only a band-aid. The general problem is apparently
psychiatric.
With so many media people manifesting amazement at the revelations about political corruption and Wall Street scams,
one wonders if the media are really amazed or is the surprise just one more example...
With so many media people manifesting amazement at the revelations about political corruption and Wall Street scams,
one wonders if the media are really amazed or is the surprise just one more example...
I'm a sociopath, lets make that perfectly clear. I don't know if I'm an exception to any rule, but I
have a morale guideline that substitutes for the conscience, I was born without. I don't feel, as we all probably have
researched my brain reads stimuli much differently, or ignores it all together. As a sociopath,
it is hard for me to relate to the value the rest of you put into your relationships, if someone is so horrible and
cannot be controlled then just leave, do not pass go, do not let them collect your two hundred dollars, as the case
seems to be over and over again.
Advice to Victims.
I've read so many of these stories, and cannot see how every single one of you fall for the ploys of your alleged
loved ones. The thing you need to understand is sociopaths seek control, even me. It is very easy to learn just how
to present anything to get others to agree or at least behave as you want them too, the best way to discourage
a sociopath is to take the control away from them. You can do this directly, assert yourself as the one in control,
or get law enforcement involved, most sociopaths, out of self preservation, will not come after you with their own freedom
at stake. We understand consequences, and will not volunteer for any of them.
Addendum.
If you've already suffered and left, and are merely looking for some sort of understanding, well then, hear this.
People, these days, have a Victim mentality. You, humans, want pity, consolation, like your own personal TV drama.
TV is not how the world is suppose to work, but I find that more and more situations end up with dramatic endings.
Drama is not supposed to run the world, blame your television set. It is not hard to get over things, simply separate
it, because if you let this person control your thoughts, then they won, they have accomplished
their goal. Control.
Advice to Sociopaths
The world is stale, boredom is so hard to overcome, because you don't FEEL like our fellow inhabitants of the Earth,
we simply exist. We get impulses like animals, but we also use Logic, more precisely than any other being, even humans.
Sociopathy is a Blessing or a Curse, depending on whom you ask, and what day it is. I've seen horrid displays of human
emotion that makes me glad that I have no emotional spectrum, but I also resent the fact that I'm numb inside, it has
almost driven me to extremes, but the code I live my life by, my substitute conscience, always keeps me in line. I made
my rules that I live by, and insist that others live by in my presence, and if I can agree on these rules, as important,
then I can stop myself from doing the rather basic or violent things that my impulses drive me too.
I know, most of us, can tell a lot about a person merely looking them over, know what they want to hear, and know
how to present it to them in a manner to get what we want, I know I can. I'm very good at playing human. I'm handsome,
charming, and have a higher IQ than a good ninety percent of people on the planet, and yes, I see myself as 'better
than' everyone surrounding me, but that doesn't mean I should use the people beneath me, I would rather help them, like
a stray animal, they're very little importance to me, but I'd rather not have them whining within earshot. With your
ability to manipulate people, you can lead them in the 'right' direction just as easy as you can lead them in the wrong
one.
Humanity is all we have, really, to communicate with, especially since there isn't conventions or parades held in
our honor. So, we must simply learn how to be peaceful in our world with others. A human life means very little, we've
had time to observe and analyze that people are going to die, so their personal deaths aren't very important, but we
are human, at least, genetically, too. We will die, the same way they will, so our lives really aren't more important
than others'. Plenty of jobs in society a sociopath would excel at, far past our human counter
parts. Lawyers, Law Enforcement, Politicians, and many others, to name a few. I suggest you look strongly
in the mirror, and decide on a good life to live, because, we all know how tempting boredom is, to do something new,
and satisfy that perpetually talking mind. So, devote yourself to something, even if you cannot feel happy at the fruition
of your skill, you can know that you're the best at what you do, and know that rather than manipulating those around
you, you were an example among us and helped others rather than hurt them. With a smile and good reputation you can
get a lot further in life than with fear. Fear eventually inspires your pets to snap at you, or flee. Love, Respect,
and Admiration inspires them to continue on in the path you set for them.
JD, as a sociopath, I can tell you... you are not one of us. While I don't doubt you have issues this is not
your issue. Stop letting your ex wife dictate to you what you are. As I am sure she has something to do with your
believe that you are a sociopath.
Also I wouldn't expect Divineman to return or reply. I've had some experience with the hit and fade tactic he
is using. No doubt he probably came back at some point to see what the replies were but didn't feel the need to..
amuse you.
I, on the other hand, am in the mood to amuse myself and you by answering some of the questions you had for him.
Perhaps they will enlighten you or otherwise confirm some presumed theories you have had.
Marriage is something I can't really breakdown into less than a chapter. It would take me quite a while to explain
and I am not currently in the mood to go into such detail.
BTW, I learned a long time ago that it is best to get a girl to cheat on you and leave you. That way you don't
have to put up with the constant acquisitions and harassment they want to subject you to. If a woman leaves you
she wont look back. If you leave her she will stalk you till the end of time. Now my ex still hates me bitterly
but she doesn't stalk me and that is all that really matters to me. I am not concerned with her erratic emotional
instability even if I am the cause.
As for faking emotions... The only time I have found it hard to fake emotions is at a funeral. Everyone is crying
and sad and they want you to be sad and cry with them but all I want to do is go get something to eat or go smoke
some weed. I believe in the Bible. So I know that certain people, when they die, will go to Heaven. So why feel
sad for them? Are they not going to a happier place? I do not understand this about people. You weep and cry for
people who are moving on to a better existence than your own. It doesn't make much sense.
Other than funerals faking emotions isn't hard. I like to play the role of Chandler from the TV series Friends.
I like to be the funny/witty/sarcastic guy. It's a better role to play because you can always act as if you are
being sarcastic.. even when you are not. Other than that I just pretend to be interested in what these cattle say.
I mean if you think about it.. normal people are all a bunch of fake liars anyway. Always laughing and smiling about
stupid crap no one really cares about but they do so because it is their social norm. How ironic that their social
norm is just my plain norm. Who's faking it now? Reflect on that.. so called normal people.
BTW, All you Christians and your waivering faith are going straight to Hell. Why? Because you didn't obey the
laws. Why? Because your EMOTIONS got in the way. Little note. If your "temple" is completely corrupted you can kill
yourself and still go to Heaven. In fact killing yourself really isn't a rejection of God so much as a rejection
of pain. Normal peoples views on God pisses me off the most. How can you say a homosexual is going to Hell or someone
who kills himself when all sins are equal sins? Bunch of people living in glasses houses throwing stones at each
other. Each of you claiming to be correct. Each of you claiming the other to be wrong. You so called normal people
are responsible for the deaths of millions of people around the world due to your arrogant/ignorant judgements.
Then you say I am crazy because I don't share your emotional instability. You people of humanity are not a great
people. You are an abomination to this planet and your own greatest enemy.
Normal people are slaves to their emotions while sociopaths are ruled by their logic. That's what makes us superior
to you. That's what gives us control over you and that's why we think less of you.
WhiteWolf Starting Member
CBoo, moral insanity is part of being a sociopath.
As for evil deeds. What is evil? To determine what evil is really relies on what is socialy acceptable in an
area. In Iran people get stoned to death. In America that is simply evil. So evil can be a broad term. We also prey
on others which can be seen as evil. I believe it is more instinctive than evil. We see weakness.. we exploit weakness.
It's how we survive.
I, for some reason, do not like little dogs. Something about them triggers my instinct to attack. I tortured
a lot of little animals as a child. As an adult I try very hard not to torture them but the instinct to punt a little
dog is ever present in my mind. I also tortured cats as a child but as I have grown up I have come to really love
cats.. but I still hate little dogs. lol Am I evil as well?
CBoo, I will let you in on a little secret that may help you some. Other sociopaths will hate me for admiting
this. If you actually got your ex to stalk you... you got the very best of him. You beat him bad if he was that
obsessed with aquiring revenge against you. Take comfort in that thought because you won. To us the game is everything
because we have nothing else and you beat him at the game.
The following is just me rambling.
I'm working on my sheep and wolves analogy but it is not perfected yet. So much of the new testiment is dedicated
to the sociopaths. I think Jesus was trying to explain things to people who will never understand. If you feed the
wolf, give the wolf a home to defend and love the wolf.. it is your wolf. That which would prey on you becomes your
greatest defender. But you do not love your neighbors as you should thus we prey on you. You're supposed to drown
us in love. It is your love that destroys our hate. It is your fear that turns you into our prey. Perhaps your fear
provokes our instinct to attack or prey upon you. I believe this is only true for sociopaths who have moral guidlines.
The rest are just wolves.
Many of you have written elsewhere about the emotional damage done to you from living with a psychopath (formerly
termed "sociopath"). A psychopath is defined as one who lacks empathy, guilt, remorse, and a feeling of responsibility.
Thus the psychopath is the exact opposite of the depressed individual (who often suffers from excessive guilt, remorse
and feelings of responsibility).
There is an excellent description of a psychopath's behavior at:
The best researched scale to measure the degree to which an individual is a psychopath is R. Hare's Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) which is discussed at:
The psychological diagnosis of a "psychopath" differs from the psychiatric diagnosis of "antisocial personality
disorder". This distinction is discussed at:
Given the harm that psychopaths do to others; it is easy to just judge them as "evil" and not consider that
this disorder may have an underlying biological cause.
Recent research has shown that psychopaths may have abnormal functioning in the parts of their brains that control
emotion. There are excellent reviews of this at:
Our very compassionate member, David, alluded to psychopaths having such a biologically-based disorder in an earlier
discussion. If you have ever lived with a psychopath, you will eventually conclude that there must be something desperately
wrong in the way their brain functions. How can a normal person not feel guilt, remorse or responsibility?
Research on antisocial personality disorder suggests that about half of this disorder has an environmental causation,
and the other half has a genetic causation:
Early research suggested that the treatment of psychopaths actually made them worse. This research argued that psychotherapy
just gave the psychopath new ways to justify their behavior (e.g., "I learned that my behavior is all due to my terrible
childhood", etc.). More recent research has concluded that we just don't know if treatment helps or harms psychopaths:
However, there is a consensus amongst mental health professionals. Namely, if you are in a relationship
with a psychopath, leave. There is no way whereby a normal individual can happily live with another individual
who does not feel guilt, remore or responsibility. Remember, this advice is valid only if the other individual is
truly a psychopath (that is, the individual has the majority of items listed in R. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised).
Since this topic has received many posts elsewhere; I believe it should be given its own forum here.
Thus I would welcome hearing if your mental health problems were related to dealing with a psychopath.
I'm on a mission. When I left my ex sociopath husband, I was totally unprepared for what lay ahead of me and I made
crucial mistakes in dealing with my situation. I'm painfully aware that there are people out there who are currently
living with a sociopath and want to leave, but may be unsure of what to expect or of how to go about it.
While all situations are different in some ways, leaving a sociopath, because of their very
nature, is almost always complicated. Even more complicated when marriage, kids and financial factors are
involved. I don't have all the solutions, but I will give all that I have and hope that others who have freed themselves
from a sociopath can add their tips too. I speak only from my own experience and from what I have read from others'
experiences.
Some of this advice may also be a applicable to men leaving women sociopaths.
Prepare yourself mentally. You cannot change the sociopath, not by love, not by therapy, not by time, not by
separation, not by anything. Especially not by having a baby with him/her. It's vital that you accept that and that
you resolve never to return. When you leave a sociopath it must be for good, or else you are setting yourself up
for a sick and protracted game with him/her.
Realize that what attracted you to the sociopath in the first place was a mirage, a false image. The sociopath
is good at "sussing people out". He/she can figure out very quickly what it is that you are looking for in a partner
and morphs themselves into your soul mate. Every so often that mask slips and you see the real person, but the sociopath
knows very well how to put that mask back up at any time that it suits their skewered view of the situation. Do
not be conned by that false persona again. And don't by intimidated by their appearance of supreme confidence, that's
also a front.
The sociopath is able to moderate their own behaviour. Often, others think that he/she is a wonderful person.
They never get close enough to see the other side. This is how the sociopath is able to function in day to day life.
They do this for self-preservation, and it often makes us think we look like we're crazy. Remember that you are
not crazy, you have emotions, you are normal. Its also common for a sociopath to suggest that you have mental issues
by the way. Its just another abuse tactic.
Sociopaths very often try to isolate you from people that would be your greatest allies should you leave. Family,
friends and potential friends - sometimes even his own family. Sometimes he will try to fill your "social calender"
with his own friends, those he knows he can turn to his side in time to come. Typical tactics would be to bad-mouth
you to them, or them to you or both ways. Also typical would be to fill your time in such a way that you lose touch
with friends or to move you away from familiar territory. I have read so many times, and it was also the case in
my situation, where a simple phone call to mom or dad or an old friend was such a relief to both parties and that
bonds were never really broken. Its very good to have support when you leave a sociopath.
Often it is difficult to leave a sociopath because you have no income of your own, or he has been financially
abusive and there are kids to consider, or you are scared he will be violent. In fact, I believe many women stay
in bad marriages for these reasons. The best advice I can give here, and there is NO shame in this, is to visit
your local women's shelter. You do not (unless you choose to or need to) have to sleep at the shelter. The wonderful
people at these places have a wealth of advice to give - financial, legal, medical, housing, councelling etc. At
many shelters they will even help you to find employment. I would advise paying them a visit even before you leave
the sociopath, whether he has been physically abusive or not. Their support is also valuable if you do not have
support from family or friends.
Limit any contact that you have with the sociopath. If you have no kids, cut all contact. If you have kids,
limit it to only communication necessary for the kid/s sake. Insist on communicating only via e-mail, registered
letters, or via/with a third party. A sociopath will mess with your head so badly if you allow him to talk with
you direct. That I can guarantee you.
If you are going to divorce him or you have kids, start gathering all evidence immediately. Prepare yourself
for a massive battle. I have yet to read of an amicable divorce/custody agreement from a sociopath. If your finances
are strained, apply now for legal aid, some countries have a waiting list for "free" lawyers. If you can afford
a really good lawyer, don't spare the expense. If you can't then make sure you're on his case constantly from day
one. Just by the way, a sociopath always tells his lawyer what to do and not the other way around. So take advice
from your lawyer, get the options available and instruct him/her. Do not be lax with the legal system, make it work.
And don't spare the awful, disgusting details about the sociopath and his/her behaviour. Paint a picture of the
very devil himself because that is what he will try to do with your image.
Expect the sociopath to dart off to the family advocate or whoever deals with child welfare in your country.
The sociopath will present himself well, so try to get in first. Don't just presume that these people will see him
for who he really is. Tell them everything. Offer evidence of abuse if you have it.
Always work with the legal/child welfare system. You do not want to turn these people against you by suddenly
running off with the kids or by breaching court orders.
Once you have left the sociopath there is a chance that he/she will stalk and/or harass you and smear your reputation
around your work, neighbourhood, friends etc. Try to gather evidence of this and pursue a restraining order. All
sociopaths are capable of anything and should never be underestimated. Check your car regularly - tyres, battery,
water tank, breaks etc, and make sure where you are living is very secure. Notify neighbours and local police of
any interferences near your home.
I may add more as I think of it. I hope this helps someone out there. I don't mean to scare anyone by the way,
its just reality, sorry.
Teach your children how to make a collect call, and how to dial 911.
Ask a neighbor to call the police if violence begins.
Be sure to have all abuse (sexual and physical) documented.
Hide away some money.
Establish a code word for danger with friends, and family.
Do not tell the him/her that you are leaving face to face. Leave when he is not there, get somewhere safe, then
call him, or have someone else call and tell him/her that you have left. In many cases, you aren't just leaving,
you are escaping.
Check the laws where you are, as stalking is now a criminal offense in many states, and countries.
Hide an extra set of house and car keys.
When preparing to leave, try to have available:
--Social Security numbers (yours, his, childrens)
--Birth certificates (your and the childrens)
--Drivers license
--Bank account numbers
--Insurance policies, and numbers
--Marriage license
--Valuable jewelry
Adult psychopaths commonly have a long history of significant behavior problems in youth and juvenile delinquency
(although most delinquents will not become psychopaths). Studies show that a significant portion of children who show
psychopathic traits — often referred to among researchers as “callous-unemotional (CU) traits,” which include not being
concerned about others’ feelings and not feeling bad or guilty
Frick says some of the best evidence for helping kids with CU traits comes from an Australian study of boys ages
4 to 8 with conduct problems. Those with CU traits did not respond to the common discipline strategy of time-outs but
they did show a response to a parenting strategy in which they were rewarded — praised — for good, “prosocial” behavior.
Frick says the study, published in 2005 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, makes sense considering
that people with psychopathic tendencies tend to be reward-driven and largely insensitive to
punishment.
"I would not be surprised if a big factor was the despair that sets in by age 50 plus or minus when you realize your
life has been wasted doing meaningless tasks for bosses who are essentially criminals.
The American way of prosperity leaves something out."
After falling for more than a decade, the U.S. suicide rate has climbed steadily since 1999, driven by an alarming
increase among middle-age adults, researchers said Monday.
A new six-year analysis in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the U.S. suicide rate rose to 11
per 100,000 people in 2005, from 10.5 per 100,000 in 1999, an increase of just under 5%.
The report found that virtually all of the increase was attributable to a nearly 16% jump in suicides among people
ages 40 to 64, a group not commonly seen as high-risk. The rate for that age group rose to 15.6 per 100,000 in 2005,
from 13.5 per 100,000 in 1999.
Susan P. Baker, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and an author of
the study, said she was baffled by the findings. Sociological studies have found that middle age is generally a time
of relative security and emotional well-being, she said.
"We really don't know what is causing this," said Dr. Paula Clayton, research director of the American Foundation
for Suicide Prevention, who was not involved in the study. "All we have is speculation."
One possibility, she said, is that the increase in suicides might be tied to a concurrent increase in abuse of prescription
pain pills, such as OxyContin. Studies have shown that people who abuse drugs are at greater risk for suicide, she noted.
Another possible explanation, she said, was the drop in hormone replacement therapy after it was linked to health
risks in 2002. Women who gave up the drugs or decided not to take them might have been more susceptible to depression
and potentially suicide, she said.
Dr. Ian Cook, an associate professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine,
who was not involved in the study, said stresses of modern life, particularly worries in the aftermath of the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, might have a role.
Untreated depression is the leading cause of suicide, he said.
"The bottom line is while we can't infer a lot of things about what is causing the trend, I think it cries out for
better depression screening and treatment," he said.
Suicide rates declined 18% from 1986 to 1999, helped in part by a focus on prevention among teenagers and the elderly.
In the current study, researchers found little or no change in the suicide rates for three other age groups: 10 to
19, 20 to 29, and over 65.
Suicides for whites ages 40 to 64 rose 17% from 1999 to 2005, researchers said. For middle-age white men, the rate
rose 16% to 26.9 per 100,000 in 2005, from 23.1 per 100,000 in 1999. For white women in that age group, the rate rose
19% to 8.2 per 100,000 from 6.9 per 100,000.
The suicide rate among middle-age African Americans rose 7% from 1999 to 2005, but it was not enough to drive up
the overall suicide rate among blacks.
For black men ages 40 to 64, the rate rose 5% to 10.4 per 100,000 from 9.9 per 100,000, and for black women in that
age group, the rate rose 14% to 2.5 per 100,000 from 2.2 per 100,000.
Baker said she had no idea why the increases among whites were higher.
The authors find an increase in the rate of suicide in a longitudinal analysis of the 40-64 cohort. This would already
hold for an inherent acceleration in suicide as people move from an younger cohort to the one being discussed.
Greg
coberly: (despair over wasted life)
Isn't that what the stereotypical midlife crisis is mostly about? What you mentioned is just a particular aspect
of the general phenomenon. And it usually doesn't start as late as 50. But I can imagine the despair escalates.
As for Greg's point, he has already followed up but what he says is essentially it's a boomer phenomenon -- whatever
characteristics boomers have are strongest in the age group where the peak of the boomers is. That's how I read his
claim.
cm
Really interesting, thanks for posting this. I'd also look to the increasing use of SSRI antidepressants, which have
suicide as a side-effect. I understand some new allergy medicines also have depression and suicide as a side effect-Singulair?
Laurie
Yep, boomers. They died in their 20s and now in their 50s. There should be cheering all around.
But on a serious note, I wonder what the job loss is among this group. The stats on men/women increases work against
this factor but it may play some role. Also, what about divorce. Are a greater number left alone in their 50s after
children are grown with children moving elsewhere for jobs? A loneliness factor, perhaps?
Perhaps its just not anything in particular.
Anna Lee
A rake is defined as a man habituated to immoral conduct. Rakes are frequently
stock characters in novels. Often a rake is a man who wastes
his (usually inherited) fortune on
wine, women and song, incurring lavish
debts in the process. The rake is also frequently a cad: a man who
seduces a young woman and impregnates her before leaving, often
to her social or financial ruin. To call the character a rake calls attention to his promiscuity and wild spending
of money; to call the character a cad implies a callous seducer who coldly breaks his victim's heart. These men
are also known as heels. A bounder is an 'ill-bred, unscrupulous man', the social inferior of the cad.[1][2][3][4]
During the English Restoration period (1660–1688), the
word was used in a glamorous sense: the Restoration rake is a carefree, witty, sexually irresistible aristocrat typified
by Charles II's courtiers, the
Earl of Rochester and the
Earl of Dorset, who combined riotous
living with intellectual pursuits and patronage of the arts. The Restoration rake is celebrated in the
Restoration comedy of the 1660s and 1670s.[5]
After the reign of Charles II, and especially after the Glorious
Revolution of 1688, the cultural perception of the rake took a dive into squalor. The rake became the butt of moralistic
tales in which his typical fate was debtor's prison,
venereal disease, or, in the case of
William Hogarth's A Rake's Progress,
insanity in
Bedlam.[6]
The rake is often portrayed as a heavy drinker or gambler. An earlier form of the word was rake-hell, a form
reshaped by folk etymology to mean someone who stokes the
fires of Hell, making them hotter. The actual
etymology of the word is from the
Old Norsereikall, meaning "vagrant" or "wanderer";
this was borrowed into Middle English as rakel (possibly
via Dutchrekel, meaning "scoundrel").
Lovelace, suitor to Clarissa in
Samuel Richardson's novel. Lovelace (a pun on Loveless)
is as much interested in power as seduction.
Michael Moorcock's character
Colonel Pyat presents one of the least appealing forms of
the rake archetype, despite being historically a little too late for the classic definiton of a rake.
Historical figures who have informed the stock character include:
The stock character of the rake can be contrasted with some others. The town drunk is frequently intoxicated, and impoverished by
heavy drinking, but here the focus is on the character's alcoholic
state rather than on sexual excess; the town drunk is typically older than the rake.
Kathy Shedd had red hair. Meg Rafferty was shy. And Jodee Blanco was just different. Those were their crimes.
The punishments for Blanco, Shedd, Rafferty, and others like them? Being kicked, punched and spit upon. They were
yelled at, taunted and shunned. They spent hard time in isolation, crying themselves to sleep at night, sometimes wanting
to die.
They weren't in prison. They were in school. And their tormenters were not adults, but other children. And yet, now
as adults, the memories of childhood bullying still haunt their daily lives.
"I was relentlessly tormented from fifth grade until the end of high school simply for being different," says Blanco,
a former public relations executive from Chicago. Blanco wrote about her experiences in Please Stop Laughing at Us.
.. : One Survivor's Extraordinary Quest to Prevent School Bullying, which was published in the spring. "I was ambushed.
I would find my belongings floating in the toilet. I was spat at and kicked and worst — ignored."
Blanco, a school consultant who talks to students and teachers about ways to prevent bullying — often cyberbullying
— still bears the emotional pain of bullying, including raw flashbacks to childhood torment. But she's getting help
and now also wants other adults who have been bullied to seek help as well.
Though cyberbullying has taken center stage among many in the psychological community, "adult survivors of peer abuse,"
as she calls her demographic, often suffer in silence, she says.
Rafferty, of Eden Prairie, Minn., 52, knew she was different and "that there was something wrong with me," she says.
But like many adult survivors, "I tried to hide it."
Not everyone who is bullied has lifelong trauma. But there's no question that "unrelenting, daily hostilities that
maybe escalate to threats or actual aggression can be on par with torture and child abuse," or that "repeated and severe
bullying can cause psychological trauma," says Daniel Nelson, medical director of the Child Psychiatry Unit at the Cincinnati
Children's Hospital Medical Center.
"There's no question that bullying in certain instances can be absolutely devastating."
The abuse that Kathy Shedd of Lafayette, Ind., endured more than two decades ago still affects her, even at age 42.
Shedd's crime? Being born with red hair — and having a name that unfortunately made rhyming taunts simple.
"Being bullied set me up as a mark," she says. "I don't fight back." It's so bad that she likes to have her husband
with her when she goes out in public — although lately things have been improving for her, ever since she began focusing
on the issue.
"I've always wanted to know: Why? Why do they bully?"
That's a simple question with many answers. Experts have different theories on why certain children get picked on,
but most agree that being different — in even the smallest way — can lead to bullying.
As a teenager, Jenny Morsch, 28, of Hinckley, Ill., became the target of anonymous letters that called her fat and
threatened her. She has her suspicions about the teens in town who might have written the letters. But even police couldn't
identify the perpetrators, leaving Jenny ostracized, sentenced to sit alone at lunch with kids staring at her. The letters
made her frightened, depressed and suicidal."
She did get help in college. But a decade after it happened, it still affects her.
"I feel like everything sucks and I can't do anything right. I feel like I have to be perfect."
Blanco is also still affected today, even though she spends her life counseling other victims. Recently she began
therapy to help her put the pain behind her.
And she strongly believes that others who have survived years of abuse also need to find ways of healing.
"I want people who are victims, who are survivors like me, to know that if you're affected by it, you have to take
it just as seriously as you would if you were abused in any other way as a child, and you need to incorporate it into
whatever therapy you're doing," she says. " You have to acknowledge it."
READERS: Have you ever been bullied? How did you deal with it? Does it affect you now? Or have you ever been the
bully? Why and is there anything someone could've done to make you stop? Share your experiences and opinions below,
keeping in mind USA TODAY's community guidelines against personal attacks and hate speech:
At thirty-eight, Kiehl is one of the world’s leading younger investigators in psychopathy, the condition of moral
emptiness that affects between fifteen to twenty-five per cent of the North American prison population, and is believed
by some psychologists to exist in one per cent of the general adult male population. (Female psychopaths are thought
to be much rarer.) Psychopaths don’t exhibit the manias, hysterias, and neuroses that are present in other types of
mental illness. Their main defect, what psychologists call “severe emotional detachment”—a total lack of empathy and
remorse—is concealed, and harder to describe than the symptoms of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. This absence of
easily readable signs has led to debate among mental-health practitioners about what qualifies as psychopathy and how
to diagnose it. Psychopathy isn’t identified as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
the American Psychiatric Association’s canon; instead, a more general term, “antisocial personality disorder,” known
as A.P.D., covers the condition.
There is also little consensus among researchers about what causes psychopathy. Considerable evidence, including
several large-scale studies of twins, points toward a genetic component. Yet psychopaths are more likely to come from
neglectful families than from loving, nurturing ones. Psychopathy could be dimensional, like high blood pressure, or
it might be categorical, like leukemia. Researchers argue over whether tests used to measure it should focus on behavior
or attempt to incorporate personality traits—like deceitfulness, glibness, and lack of remorse—as well. The only point
on which everyone agrees is that psychopathy is extremely difficult to treat. And for some researchers the word “psychopath”
has been tainted by its long and seamy relationship with criminality and popular culture, which began with true-crime
pulps and continues today in TV shows like CBS’s “Criminal Minds” and in the work of authors like Thomas Harris and
Patricia Cornwell. The word is so loaded with baleful connotations that it tends to empurple any surrounding prose.
Kiehl is frustrated by the lack of respect shown to psychopathy by the mental-health establishment. “Think about
it,” he told me. “Crime is a trillion-dollar-a-year problem. The average psychopath will be convicted of four violent
crimes by the age of forty. And yet hardly anyone is funding research into the science. Schizophrenia, which causes
much less crime, has a hundred times more research money devoted to it.” I asked why, and Kiehl said, “Because schizophrenics
are seen as victims, and psychopaths are seen as predators. The former we feel empathy for, the latter we lock up.”
In January of 2007, Kiehl arranged to have a portable functional magnetic-resonance-imaging scanner brought into
Western—the first fMRI ever installed in a prison. So far, he has recruited hundreds of volunteers from among the inmates.
The data from these scans, Kiehl hopes, will confirm his theory, published in Psychiatry Research, in 2006, that
psychopathy is caused by a defect in what he calls “the paralimbic system,” a network of brain regions, stretching from
the orbital frontal cortex to the posterior cingulate cortex, that are involved in processing emotion, inhibition, and
attentional control. His dream is to confound the received wisdom by helping to discover a treatment for psychopathy.
“If you could target the brain region involved, then maybe you could find a drug that treats that region,” he told me.
“If you could treat just five per cent of them, that would be a Nobel Prize right there.”
The four hundred and six prisoners in the Western New Mexico facility are serving sentences ranging from a year to
life without parole. New Mexico uses a classification system that assigns each inmate a number from one to six, with
six being reserved for the most violent offenders; Western has inmates of all levels up to five. Although not all psychopaths
are violent, Kiehl told me, the majority are fours, fives, and sixes.
Unlike most academic psychopathy researchers, Kiehl has spent many hours in the company of his subjects. When he
meets colleagues at conferences, he told me, “they always ask, ‘What are they like?’ These are guys who have spent twenty
years studying psychopaths and never met one.” Although the number of psychopaths who are not in prisons is thought
to exceed the number who are—if the one-per-cent figure is correct, there are more than a million psychopaths at large
in the United States alone—they are much harder to identify in the outside world. Some are “successful psychopaths,”
holding down good jobs in many types of industries. It is generally only if they commit a crime and enter the criminal-justice
system that they become available for research.
In the conference room where Western’s warden, Anthony Romero, greeted Kiehl, there was a framed tableau of illegal
items confiscated from inmates, including handmade shivs and crude tattooing devices. Romero explained that Kiehl was
using the scanner not only to study psychopathy but also to measure the level of craving in the brains of substance
abusers as they go through a treatment program, also run by Kiehl, which is funded by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. The volunteer rate among the inmates is more than ninety per cent (although some are too muscle-bound to fit
inside the scanning tube). As a “collateral benefit,” Kiehl throws in a free clinical examination of their brains. (He
has discovered previously undetected tumors in about five per cent of the volunteers.) In addition to the pay they receive
for their time (a dollar an hour, Western’s standard rate for prison labor), inmates get pictures of their brains that
they can post in their cells. “There’s a lot of joking among the prisoners about who’s got the biggest brain,” Romero
said.
The scanner was housed in a tractor-trailer parked behind the prison’s I.D. center. We followed a correctional officer
through an internal courtyard to the rehab wing, which consisted of a large common area surrounded by two-man cells.
The prisoners were standing at attention outside their cells, some holding mops and brooms. I entered a vacant cell
and saw the occupant’s brain, a grainy black-and-white image on a piece of a paper, its edges curling, tacked up over
the desk.
Then we walked through the common room and out a door at the other end, passing under a large poster with lines that
read, “I am here because there is no refuge, finally, from myself.” The officer led us along a corridor of offices in
which students from the University of New Mexico, where Kiehl is on the faculty, conduct psychopathy interviews and
also counsel participants in the drug-treatment program. Carla Harenski, one of Kiehl’s postdocs, was interviewing a
beefy guy with a tattoo on his neck. Her office, like those of all the researchers in the lab, is equipped with a button
she can press to call for help if an interview gets out of hand.
In order to distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths among the Western volunteers, Kiehl and his students use
the revised version of the Psychopathy Checklist, or PCL-R, a twenty-item diagnostic instrument created by Robert Hare,
a Canadian psychologist, based on his long experience in working with psychopaths in prisons. Kiehl was taught to use
the checklist by Hare himself, under whom he earned his doctorate, at the University of British Columbia. Researchers
interview an inmate for up to three hours, and compare the inmate’s statements against what is known of his record and
his personal history. The interviewer “scores” the subject on each of the twenty items:
parasitic life style,
pathological lying, conning,
proneness to boredom,
shallow emotions,
lack of empathy,
poor impulse control,
promiscuity,
irresponsibility,
record of juvenile delinquency,
criminal versatility,
among other tendencies—with zero, one, or two, depending on how pronounced that trait is.
Most researchers agree that anyone who scores thirty or higher on the PCL-R is considered to be a psychopath. Kiehl
says, “Someone who scores a thirty-five, a thirty-six, they are just different. You say to yourself, ‘Aha, here you
are. You are why I do this.’ ”
Harenski recently interviewed a Western inmate who scored a 38.9. “He had killed his girlfriend because he thought
she was cheating on him,” she told me. “He was so charming about telling it that I found it hard not to fall into laughing
along in surprise, even when he was describing awful things.” Harenski, who is thirty, did not experience the involuntary
skin-crawling sensation that, according to a survey conducted by the psychologists Reid and M. J. Meloy, one in three
mental-health and criminal-justice professionals report feeling on interviewing a psychopath; in their paper on the
subject, Meloy and Meloy speculate that this reaction may be an ancient intraspecies predator-response system. “I was
just excited,” Harenski continued. “I was saying to myself, ‘Wow. I found a real one.’ ”
... ... ...
Psychopaths are as old as Cain, and they are believed to exist in all cultures, although they are more prevalent
in individualistic societies in the West. The Yupik Eskimos use the term kunlangeta to describe a man who repeatedly
lies, cheats, steals, and takes sexual advantage of women, according to a 1976 study by Jane M. Murphy, an anthropologist
then at Harvard University. She asked an Eskimo what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, and he replied,
“Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”
The condition was first described clinically in 1801, by the French surgeon Philippe Pinel. He called it “mania without
delirium.” In the early nineteenth century, the American surgeon Benjamin Rush wrote about a type of “moral derangement”
in which the sufferer was neither delusional nor psychotic but nevertheless engaged in profoundly antisocial behavior,
including horrifying acts of violence. Rush noted that the condition appeared early in life. The term “moral insanity”
became popular in the mid-nineteenth century, and was widely used in the U.S. and in England to describe incorrigible
criminals. The word “psychopath” (literally, “suffering soul”) was coined in Germany in the eighteen-eighties. By the
nineteen-twenties, “constitutional psychopathic inferiority” had become the catchall phrase psychiatrists used for a
general mixture of violent and antisocial characteristics found in irredeemable criminals, who appeared to lack a conscience.
In the late nineteen-thirties, an American psychiatrist named Hervey Cleckley began collecting data on a certain
kind of patient he encountered in the course of his work in a psychiatric hospital in Augusta, Georgia. These people
were from varied social and family backgrounds. Some were poor, but others were sons of Augusta’s most prosperous and
respected families. Cleckley set about sharpening the vague construct of constitutional psychopathic inferiority, and
distinguishing it from other forms of mental illness. He eventually isolated sixteen traits exhibited by patients he
called “primary” psychopaths; these included being charming and intelligent, unreliable, dishonest, irresponsible, self-centered,
emotionally shallow, and lacking in empathy and insight.
“Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror,
and humor have no actual meaning, no power to move him,” Cleckley wrote of the psychopath in his 1941 book,
“The Mask of Sanity,” which became the foundation of the modern science. The psychopath talks “entertainingly,” Cleckley
explained, and is “brilliant and charming,” but nonetheless “carries disaster lightly in each hand.” Cleckley emphasized
his subjects’ deceptive, predatory nature, writing that the psychopath is capable of “concealing behind a perfect mimicry
of normal emotion, fine intelligence, and social responsibility a grossly disabled and irresponsible personality.” This
mimicry allows psychopaths to function, and even thrive, in normal society. Indeed, as Cleckley also argued,
the individualistic, winner-take-all aspect of American culture nurtures psychopathy.
The psychiatric profession wanted little to do with psychopathy, for several reasons. For one thing, it was thought
to be incurable. Not only did the talking cure fail with psychopaths but several studies suggested that talk therapy
made the condition worse, by enabling psychopaths to practice the art of manipulation. There were no valid instruments
to measure the personality traits that were commonly associated with the condition; researchers could study only the
psychopaths’ behavior, in most cases through their criminal records. Finally, the emphasis in the word “psychopath”
on an internal sickness was at odds with liberal mid-century social thought, which tended to look for external causes
of social deviancy; “sociopath,” coined in 1930 by the psychologist G. E. Partridge, became the preferred term. In 1958,
the American Psychiatric Association used the term “sociopathic personality” to describe the disorder in its Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In the 1968 edition, the condition was renamed “general antisocial personality
disorder.”
Cleckley’s book fell out of favor, and Cleckley described himself late in life as “a voice crying in the wilderness.”
When he died, in 1984, he was remembered mostly for his popular study of multiple-personality disorder, written with
Corbett Thigpen, “The Three Faces of Eve.”
In 1960, Robert Hare took a job as the resident psychologist in a maximum-security prison about twenty miles outside
Vancouver. On his first day, a tall, slim, dark-haired inmate came into his office and said, “Hey, Doc, how’s it going?
Look, I’ve got a problem. I need your help.” Hare later wrote of this encounter, “The air around him seemed to buzz,
and the eye contact he made with me was so direct and intense that I wondered if I had ever really looked anybody in
the eye before.” Hare asked the inmate, whom he called Ray in his account, to tell him about his problem. “In response,
he pulled out a knife and waved it in front of my nose, all the while smiling and maintaining that intense eye contact,”
Hare wrote in his 1993 book, “Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us.” Ray said he was
planning to use the knife on another inmate, who was making overtures to his “ ‘protégé,’ a prison term for the more
passive member of a homosexual pairing.” Ray never harmed Hare, but he successfully manipulated him throughout Hare’s
eight months at the prison, and two and a half years later, after Hare had joined the faculty at the University of British
Columbia, Ray, now paroled, tried to register there with a forged transcript.
Hare wasn’t familiar with the psychopathy literature when he was working at the prison. Later that year, he moved
with his family to London, Ontario, where he pursued a Ph.D. at the University of Western Ontario. (When his brakes
failed at the first steep hill on the trip east, he recalled that Ray had worked on his car in the prison garage.) His
dissertation was on the effects of punishment on human learning and performance. One day in the library, he came across
“The Mask of Sanity.” Reading Cleckley’s case histories put Hare in mind of Ray, and of other types he had encountered
in the maximum-security prison. Were these men psychopaths? Over the next year, Hare read not only Cleckley but also
the early literature Cleckley had synthesized. After receiving his doctorate, in 1963, and returning to Vancouver, he
set about what would be his life’s work: the study of psychopathy, and the creation of the Psychopathy Checklist, the
twenty-item diagnostic instrument that Kiehl is using at Western.
Thanks to the checklist, scientists working in different places can be confident that the subjects they are studying
are taxonomically similar. The PCL also has a wide variety of forensic applications. It is employed throughout Canada
in parole-board hearings and is gaining popularity in the U.S. In the thirty-seven states that allow the death penalty,
a high psychopathy score is often used by prosecutors as an “aggravating factor” in the penalty phase of capital cases.
Psychopathy scores have also been used in child-custody cases; a high score may result in one parent’s loss of custody.
Hare’s influence on the field of psychopathy is profound. Today, Hare’s former students hold important administrative
positions throughout the Canadian prison system, and are prominently represented in the next two generations of psychopathy
researchers around the world.
One day when Kent Kiehl was eight years old, his father, Jeff, a copy editor at the Tacoma News Tribune, came
home talking about a local man named Ted Bundy. “This was a guy who had grown up just down the street,” Kiehl told me,
“and he had supposedly killed all these women.” Bundy, whose family moved to Tacoma when he was a child, is known to
have sexually assaulted and murdered at least thirty women in the nineteen-seventies. But to outward appearances he
was an exceptionally promising young man. He had received glowing letters of recommendation both from a psychology professor
at the University of Washington, where he was an undergraduate (“he is exceedingly bright, personable, highly motivated,
and conscientious”), and from the Republican governor of Washington, Dan Evans, for whom he worked.
His good looks, charm, and verbal skills—qualities that made him such an effective predator—convinced
many in the Tacoma community that he was innocent, up until the time he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death,
in 1979. Bundy was executed in Florida in 1989.
... ... ...
Another hypothesis is that psychopaths lack fear of personal injury and, more important,
moral fear—fear of punishment. David Lykken pioneered this theory in the nineteen-fifties, and it has been
taken up by James Blair, Christopher Patrick, and others. The updated version of this model posits that psychopathy
is a result of a dysfunction of the amygdala, the almond-shaped bundle of gray matter situated in the midbrain, which
is another area instrumental in emotional processing.
... ... ...
Today, Kiehl and Hare have a complementary but complicated relationship. Kiehl claims Hare as a mentor, and sees
his own work as validating Hare’s checklist, by advancing a neurological mechanism for psychopathy. Hare is less gung
ho about using fMRI as a diagnostic tool. “Some claim, in a sense, this is the new phrenology,” Hare said, referring
to the discredited nineteenth-century practice of reading the bumps on people’s heads, “only this time the bumps are
on the inside.” (Hare himself is a “strong proponent” of brain-imaging technology, but he noted that scans in isolation
will always be insufficient.) Hare sees himself as a generalist, and Kiehl as “more of a data-driven guy.” Hare added
that, while Kiehl’s brashness sometimes puts people off, “that’s why Kent gets things done.”
Robert Hare is bearded and slight, and has a detached, feline manner. He is in his early seventies, and his position
at the University of British Columbia is emeritus. I met him in May, at a Homewood Suites hotel in Albany, where he
was conducting a two-day seminar in psychopathy and the use of the checklist, sponsored by the New York State Office
of Mental Health’s Bureau of Sex Offender Education and Treatment. A substantial percentage
of sex offenders are psychopaths. New York State recently began creating special programs housed in psychiatric
facilities for sex offenders who have completed their prison terms but are judged too dangerous to release.
Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist now exists in three variations. (There’s one for juveniles, the PCL-YV, and one designed
for the general population—the “screening” version.) He collects a royalty fee every time the official PCL scoring sheet
is used. The complete psychopathy kit, which includes a book-length manual on how to administer the checklist, costs
two hundred and sixty-three dollars. It has been translated into more than twenty languages. The Albany seminar was
one of roughly half a dozen that Hare conducts each year. He was giving a talk on psychopathy and culpability in Las
Vegas the following week; then he was off to Rome, to instruct the carabinieri in the use of the checklist, and in profiling
psychopaths. In Albany, his audience was composed mostly of psychologists and other mental-health professionals.
Hare sees himself as continuing the work that Cleckley started—warning society of a devastating and costly mental
disorder that it mostly continues to ignore. Hare’s forensic experience has taught him that psychopathy is of vital
concern to mental-health workers in prisons as well as to people in law enforcement and on parole boards; people who
come into daily contact with dangerous and destructive individuals need an instrument that will allow them to identify
psychopaths and make risk assessments based on their predictive behavior. (According to several national and international
studies, psychopathic criminal offenders are three times more likely to return to prison within a year of their release.)
Mary Ellen O’Toole, one of the F.B.I.’s top criminal profilers, whose job is “to investigate the most extreme and violent
crimes from all over the world, including serial murders, serial rapes, child abductions, school shootings, workplace
violence, domestic homicides, and other crimes of extreme and/or bizarre violence,” told me that she uses her psychopathy
training, some of which came under Hare, when she is investigating crime scenes. She looks for evidence of, “for example,
lack of remorse, thrill seeking, or impulsivity that could be consistent with the traits and characteristics of psychopathy.”
This information, in turn, can be useful in “the investigation, the interview, even the prosecution of the offender.”
Hare wants to disassociate psychopathy from the DSM’s catchall diagnosis of antisocial personality
disorder. “It’s like having pneumonia versus having a cold,” he said. “They share some common symptoms, but one is much
more virulent.” Before the fourth edition of the DSM came out, in 1994, Hare published several articles pointing
to field research that showed a difference between psychopathy and A.P.D. John Gunderson, the psychiatrist who chaired
the personality-disorders work group for the revision, told Hare that, intellectually, he had “won the battle,” Hare
recalls; even so, in DSM-IV “psychopathy” appears only as a synonym for A.P.D. (Gunderson says this was a function
of institutional inertia.) Hare has continued to follow preparations for the next edition, due out in 2012, and recently
sent an e-mail to a senior member of the task force inquiring about what revisions, if any, were planned for A.P.D.
The reply, Hare said, was noncommittal.
Hare has published two books that translate some of the concepts of psychopathy for a general audience and attempt
to teach people how to identify the “successful psychopaths” in their midst. In the introduction to “Without Conscience,”
he writes, “It is very likely that at some point in your life you will come into painful contact with a psychopath.
For your own physical, psychological, and financial well-being it is crucial that you know how to identify the psychopath.”
Among the professions likely to attract psychopaths, he writes, are law enforcement, the military, politics, and medicine,
although he notes that these have norms and are self-policing. The most agreeable vocation for psychopaths, according
to Hare, is business. In his second book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work,” written with Paul Babiack,
Hare flirts with pop psychology when he points out that many traits that may be desirable in
a corporate context, such as ruthlessness, lack of social conscience, and single-minded devotion to success, would be
considered psychopathic outside of it.
On the evening of the first day of the seminar, Hare and I went out for dinner at Smokey Bones, a rib joint. As I
sped along Wolf Road, a traffic light ahead turned yellow. I momentarily thought about flooring it, and probably would
have, if not for my passenger; instead, I slowed down and stopped. But the car on my left went flying by, through what
was now a red light.
“Wow, look at that,” Hare said. “Now, that man might be a psychopath. That was psychopathic
behavior, certainly—to put others in the intersection in danger in order to realize your own goals.”
But the problem is that “psychopathic behavior”—egocentricity, for example, or lack of realistic
long-term goals—is present in far more than one per cent of the adult male population. This blurriness in
the psychopathic profile can make it possible to see psychopaths everywhere or nowhere. In the mid-fifties, Robert Lindner,
the author of “Rebel Without a Cause: A Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath,” explained juvenile delinquency as an
outbreak of mass psychopathy. Norman Mailer inverted this notion in “The White Negro,” admiring the hipster as a “philosophical
psychopath” for having the courage of nonconformity. In the sixties, sociopathy replaced psychopathy as the dominant
construct. Now, in our age of genetic determinism, society is once again seeing psychopaths everywhere, and this will
no doubt provoke others to say they are nowhere, and the cycle of overexposure and underfunding will continue.
Hare is urbane and well read, and during dinner he seasoned his clinical descriptions of the psychopath with references
to characters from film and literature. Harry Lime, the villain played by Orson Welles in “The Third Man,” is one example.
“Iago was a classic psychopath,” he added. “The way Shakespeare wrote him. In films and plays
he is portrayed as evil-seeming, but he isn’t written that way.” Hare was friendly but wary of me—several
times he said, “I have to see your eyeballs before I can tell you that.” We talked about the checklist. “Am I happy
about the way the checklist can be used?” Hare asked rhetorically. “No, not always. Am I happy it is used to help condemn
people to death? No, I am not.” Nor does he approve of its use in child-custody cases. However, he believes that, when
properly used as a predictor of risk in forensic settings, the social benefits of the checklist far outweigh its drawbacks.
Hare rejects the notion that a distinction ought to be made between a violent psychopath, like Ted Bundy, and a nonviolent
one who commits financial crimes. Both, he said, are willing to do whatever it takes. He went on, “Can you say Ted Bundy
caused more disaster than the guys at Enron? How many destroyed lives and suicides followed as a result of so many people
losing their savings?”
Philosopher and
sociologistTheodor Adorno defined schadenfreude as “largely unanticipated
delight in the suffering of another which is cognized as trivial and/or appropriate.”[2]
Spelling, etymology, and English equivalents
In German, Schadenfreude is capitalized, as are all nouns in the German language. When used as a loanword
in English, however, it is not, unless the origin of the word is meant to be emphasized. The corresponding German adjective
is schadenfroh.
The word derives from Schaden (damage, harm) and Freude (joy); Schaden derives from the
Middle High Germanschade, from the
Old High Germanscado. Freude comes from the
Middle High German vreude, from the Old High German frewida, from frō, (happy). A distinction exists
between "secret schadenfreude" (a private feeling) and "open schadenfreude" (Hohn, a
German word roughly translated as "scorn") which is outright
public derision.
Little-used English words synonymous with schadenfreude
have been derived from the Greek word ἐπιχαιρεκακία.[3][4]Nathan Bailey's 18th-century Universal Etymological English
Dictionary, for example, contains an entry for epicharikaky that gives its
etymology as a compound of epi (upon), chaira (joy),
and kakon (evil).[5][6] A popular modern collection
of rare words, however, gives its spelling as "epicaricacy." [7]
A more common English expression with a similar meaning is 'Roman
holiday', a metaphor taken from the poem "Childe
Harold's Pilgrimage" by George Gordon, Lord Byron,
where a gladiator in
Ancient Rome expects to be "butcher'd to make a Roman holiday"
while the audience would take pleasure from watching his suffering. The term suggests debauchery and disorder in addition
to sadistic enjoyment.[8]
Another phrase with a meaning similar to Schadenfreude is "morose delectation" ("delectatio morosa" in
Latin), meaning "the habit of dwelling with enjoyment on evil
thoughts".[9] The medieval church taught morose delectation as a sin.[10][11]French writer
Pierre Klossowski (1905-2001) maintained that the appeal
of sadism is morose delectation.[12][13]
The Buddhist concept of mudita, "sympathetic joy" or "happiness in another's good fortune,"
is cited as an example of the opposite of schadenfreude.[14][15]
Alternatively envy, unhappiness in another's good fortune, could
be considered the counterpart of schadenfreude.
Literary and philosophical discussion of the emotion of schadenfreude
Aristotle
In the Nicomachean Ethics,
Aristotle used the term epikhairekakia (alternatively epikairekakia; ἐπιχαιρεκακία in Greek) as part of a triad
of terms, in which epikhairekakia stands as the opposite of phthonos, and nemesis occupies the mean. Nemesis is "a painful response
to another's undeserved good fortune," while phthonos is "a painful response to any good fortune," deserved or
not. The epikhairekakos person actually takes pleasure in another's ill fortune.[16][17]
Seventeenth Century
During the 17th century,
Robert Burton wrote in his work The Anatomy of Melancholy, "Out of these two
[the concupiscible and irascible powers] arise those mixed affections and passions of anger, which is a desire of revenge;
hatred, which is inveterate anger; zeal, which is offended with him who hurts that he loves; and ἐπιχαιρεκακία, a compound
affection of joy and hate, when we rejoice at other men's mischief, and are grieved at their prosperity; pride, self-love,
emulation, envy, shame, &c., of which elsewhere."[18]
Scientific studies of schadenfreude
A New York Times article in 2002 cited a number
of scientific studies of schadenfreude. Many such studies are based on
social comparison theory, the idea that when people
around us have bad luck, we look better to ourselves. Other researchers have found that people
with low self-esteem are more likely to feel schadenfreude than are people who have high self-esteem.[19]
One recent (2006) experiment suggests that men, but not women, enjoy seeing "bad" people suffer. The study was designed
to measure empathy, by watching which brain centers are stimulated when subjects inside an
MRI observe someone having a painful experience. Researchers expected
that the brain's empathy center would show more stimulation when those seen as "good" got an electric shock than they
would if the shock was given to someone the subject had reason to consider bad. This was indeed the result for their
female subjects, but for male subjects the brain's pleasure centers also lit up when someone else got a shock that the
male thought was well-deserved.[20]
[Jun 18, 2008] Bad guys really do get the most girls by Mason Inman
NewScientist.com
NICE guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why
a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the "dark triad" persists in the human population, despite their
potentially grave cultural costs.
The traits are:
the self-obsession of narcissism;
the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths;
and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism.
At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these
personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable
to predators.
But being just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University
in Las Cruces. "We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful
evolutionary strategy."
Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of
the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including
how many partners they'd had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.
The study found that those who scored higher on the dark triad personality traits tended
to have more partners and more desire for short-term relationships, Jonason reported at the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society meeting in Kyoto, Japan, earlier this month. But the correlation only
held in males.
James Bond epitomises this set of traits, Jonason says. "He's clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying
new things - killing people, new women." Just as Bond seduces woman after woman, people with dark triad traits may be
more successful with a quantity-style or shotgun approach to reproduction, even if they don't stick around for parenting.
"The strategy seems to have worked. We still have these traits," Jonason says.
This observation seems to hold across cultures. David Schmitt of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, presented
preliminary results at the same meeting from a survey of more than 35,000 people in 57 countries. He found a similar
link between the dark triad and reproductive success in men. "It is universal across cultures for high dark triad scorers
to be more active in short-term mating," Schmitt says. "They are more likely to try and poach other people's partners
for a brief affair."
Barbara Oakley of Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, says that the studies "verify something a lot of people
have conjectured about".
Christopher von Rueden of the University of California at Santa Barbara says that the studies are important because
they confirm that personality variation has direct fitness consequences.
"They still have to explain why it hasn't spread to everyone," says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado
in Boulder. "There must be some cost of the traits." One possibility, both Keller and Jonason suggest, is that the strategy
is most successful when dark triad personalities are rare. Otherwise, others would become more wary and guarded.
Self-rate yourself on a scale from 1 (meaning little agreement) to 5 (meaning strongly agree) on the following ten
items:
(1) In a crisis or chaotic situation, I calm myself and focus on taking useful actions.
(2) I'm usually optimistic, seeing difficulties as temporary and believe things will eventually turn out well.
(3) I can tolerate high levels of uncertainty and ambiguity.
(4) I'm good at bouncing back from difficulties and quickly adapt to new developments.
(5) I'm self-confident and have a healthy concept of who I am.
(6) I prefer to work without a written job description since I'm more effective when I'm free to do what I think is
best in each situation.
(7) I trust my intuition and "read" people well.
(8) I'm a good listener and have good empathy skills.
(9) I've been made stronger and better by difficult experiences.
(10) I've converted misfortune into good luck and even found benefits in bad experiences.
A low score of (under 25) means your resiliency skills are weak and you would greatly benefit from this amazing,
easy-to-read, psychobabble-free book by Dr. Al Siebert, a clinical psychologist and Director of "The Resiliency Center".
(`Resiliency' means (i) coping well with ongoing negative change (ii) sustaining good health and energy under constant
pressure (iii) bouncing back from setbacks and adversities (iv) changing to a new way of living and working when an
old way no longer works (v) and doing all this without acting in harmful ways.)
A middle score of (25 to 45) means your resiliency skills are adequate but probably can be greatly enhanced by using
this book.
A high score of (over 45) means you have good resiliency skills and this book will validate many things you are doing
right.
This book in a nutshell presents five resiliency "levels" or skills (level four is divided into 4 sub-levels while
level 5 is divided into 3 sub-levels) so, in affect, the reader is presented with ten essential resiliency skills that
Siebert has distilled from "the emerging new science of resiliency psychology." This book, besides other important things,
shows you how to:
(1) Sustain strong, healthy energy in non-stop pressure and change
(2) Bounce back quickly from setbacks
(3) Gain strength from adversities
(4) Convert misfortune into good fortune
(5) Overcome tendencies to feel like a victim, and stay detached from victim reactions of others
(6) Overcome the three main resiliency barriers.
Who is this book written for? Siebert explains: "The resiliency guidelines in this book focus mainly on resiliency
in the workplace, but they apply broadly to all aspects of life." (Actually, I think Siebert is being too restrictive
in saying that these principles "focus mainly on resiliency in the workplace." Personally, I think these principles
are essential to know so as to effectively play the game of life.)
What will this book NOT tell you? It "will not tell you what to do or how to act or think...Resilient people are
those who decide that somehow, some way, they will do the very best they can to survive, cope, and make things turn
out well." This book helps you develop your own unique way of being resilient by being both self-reliant and socially
responsible.
As a physically disabled person, my personal favorite chapter was entitled "Mastering Extreme Resiliency Challenges."
Included here are true stories from 9/11 survivors. I feel Siebert outdoes himself in this penultimate chapter.
Finally, this book has some key features. Important definitions, exercises, and other important and essential information
are isolated from the main narrative as inserts so as to highlight key ideas. Each chapter is broken up into sections
with anecdotes, examples, and true stories instead of having one long narrative. At the end of each chapter are insightful
"Resiliency Development Activities" that help you utilize and think about the information from each chapter.
In conclusion, this is truly a helpful and unique book. Discover for yourself why this book was named the winner
of the 2006 Independent Publisher Book Awards in the "Self Help" category at BookExpo America (the largest book publishing
event in the United States) and why it was endorsed by the past president of the American Psychological
Association!!
Our Life is Not Determined By What Happens But How We React, October 28, 2005
By Norman Goldman "Editor of Bookpleasures.com" (Montreal)
After reading Dr. Al Siebert's enlightening book, The Resiliency Advantage, I was reminded of the old adage that
was often drummed into me by my parents, that our life is not determined by what happens to us but how we react to what
happens, not by what life brings to us, but by the attitudes we bring to life. Thinking positively creates a chain reaction
pertaining to our thoughts, events and outcomes-a kind of catalyst that can create extraordinary results.
Siebert begins his book by telling his readers how he came to the conclusion that clinical psychology and psychiatry
are not mental health professions but rather mental illness professions. There does not seem to be any focus on what
makes individuals mentally healthy, but rather on what causes mental illnesses and how do we go about treating these
illnesses.
This prompted Siebert to do extensive research as to why some people survive many of life's ordeals while others
seem to continually flounder. As a result of his thirst for knowledge of the subject matter he developed a good understanding
of what he calls "the survivor personality."
In 1996 he published his first book on the topic, "The Survivor Personality," and we now have the follow up, The
Resiliency Advantage, that reflects the tremendous amount of knowledge Siebert accumulated in his search for the causes
and effects of the survivor personality.
According to Siebert there exist several levels of resiliency that he deals with in depth in his book: optimizing
your health, emotions and well-being; developing good problem solving skills; strengthening your inner selfs; unleashing
your curiosity and enjoy learning from the school of life; power of positive expectations; integrating paradoxical abilities;
allowing everything to work well or the synergy talent; the talent for serendipity.
In order to reinforce the learning of these principles, Siebert provides many exercises, as well as brief case histories
showing just how they work out in practice.
There is some excellent material in this book, particularly the sections dealing with learning from failures, benefits
of curious and playful questioning, the power of positive expectations, hope, optimism, and self-reliance. It is also
heartening to learn, as the author points out, that resiliency psychology, a relatively new discipline, is making good
progress and is now recognized as quite vital in understanding how it can help people fare better during adversity and
recover more quickly from life's ordeals.
Writing about new disciplines is always a challenge, given the negative feedback one often receives from the traditionalists.
However, Siebert has risen to the occasion with his breezy style of writing, and he admirably presents an accessible
work that could have easily strayed, leaving his readers with a sense of boredom.
I make the effort to share this information because it gives me, at last, a plausible answer to a long-unanswered
question: Why, no matter how much intelligent goodwill exists in the world, is there so much war, suffering and injustice?
It doesn't seem to matter what creative plan, ideology, religion, or philosophy great minds come up with, nothing seems
to improve our lot. Since the dawn of civilization, this pattern repeats itself over and over again.
The answer is that civilization, as we know it, is largely the creation of psychopaths. All civilizations, our own
included, have been built on slavery and mass murder. Psychopaths have played a disproportionate role in the development
of civilization, because they are hard-wired to lie, kill, cheat, steal, torture, manipulate, and generally inflict
great suffering on other humans without feeling any remorse, in order to establish their own sense of security through
domination. The inventor of civilization - the first tribal chieftain who successfully brainwashed an army of controlled
mass murderers - was almost certainly a genetic psychopath. Since that momentous discovery, psychopaths have enjoyed
a significant advantage over non-psychopaths in the struggle for power in civilizational hierarchies - especially military
hierarchies.
Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, is the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve
their disproportionate power. And as their power grows ever-more-threatened, the psychopaths grow ever-more-desperate.
We are witnessing the apotheosis of the overworld - the overlapping criminal syndicates that lurk above ordinary society
and law just as the underworld lurks below it.
During the past fifty years, psychopaths have gained almost absolute control of all the branches of government. You
can notice this if you observe carefully that no matter what illegal thing a modern politician does, no one will really
take him to task. All of the so called scandals that have come up, any one of which would have taken down an
authentic administration, are just farces played out for the public, to distract them, to make them think that the democracy
is still working.
One of the main factors to consider in terms of how a society can be taken over by a group of pathological deviants
is that the psychopaths' only limitation is the participation of susceptible individuals within that given society.
Lobaczewski gives an average figure for the most active deviants of approximately 6% of a given population. (1% essential
psychopaths and up to 5% other psychopathies and characteropathies.) The essential psychopath is at the center of the
web. The others form the first tier of the psychopath's control system.
The next tier of such a system is composed of individuals who were born normal, but are either already warped by
long-term exposure to psychopathic material via familial or social influences, or who, through psychic weakness have
chosen to meet the demands of psychopathy for their own selfish ends. Numerically, according to Lobaczewski, this group
is about 12% of a given population under normal conditions.
So approximately 18% of any given population is active in the creation and imposition of a Pathocracy. The 6% group
constitutes the Pathocratic nobility and the 12% group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most
advantageous.
When you understand the true nature of psychopathic influence, that it is conscienceless, emotionless, selfish, cold
and calculating, and devoid of any moral or ethical standards, you are horrified, but at the same time everything suddenly
begins to makes sense. Our society is ever more soulless because the people who lead it and who set the example are
soulless - they literally have no conscience.
In his book Political Ponerology, Andrej Lobaczewski explains that clinical psychopaths
enjoy advantages even in non-violent competitions to climb the ranks of social hierarchies. Because they
can lie without remorse (and without the telltale physiological stress that is measured by lie detector tests),
psychopaths can always say whatever is necessary to get what they want. In court,
for example, psychopaths can tell extreme bald-faced lies in a plausible manner, while their sane opponents are handicapped
by an emotional predisposition to remain within hailing distance of the truth. Too often, the
judge or jury imagines that the truth must be somewhere in the middle, and then issues decisions that benefit the psychopath.
As with judges and juries, so too with those charged with decisions concerning who to promote and who not to promote
in corporate, military and governmental hierarchies. The result is that all hierarchies inevitably become top-heavy
with psychopaths. Since psychopaths have no limitations on what they can or will do to get to the top, the ones in charge
are generally pathological. It is not power that corrupts, it is that corrupt individuals seek power.
How can we distinguish between psychopaths and healthy people? What is the portrait of a true psychopath?
Such a dangerous question has almost never been successfully asked. The reason is that we mistakenly confuse healthy
for normal. Human psychological diversity is the health of our race. There is no normal because
healthy humans continuously evolve beyond all normalizing standards. The terrorism of searching through hierarchies
for anyone deviating from normal is no different from witch hunts or Inquisitions. You must remember that hierarchies
thrive on such low dramas, torturing victims until they confess to evil beliefs. Not so long ago the church and
state ongoingly acquired significant income and property through witch hunts and Inquisitions. This continued for over
two hundred and fifty years. Ten generations of Europeans understood pogrom as normal life. Let us not return to that
nightmare. Testing for normal is guaranteed to backfire in our face. There is no normal. But there is
conscience.
We have very little empirical evidence to support the idea that true psychopathy is the result of an abused childhood,
and much empirical evidence to support that it is genetic. The neurobiological model offers us the greatest hope of
being able to identify even the most devious psychopath. Other recent studies lead to similar results and conclusions:
that psychopaths have great difficulty processing verbal and nonverbal affective (emotional) material, that they tend
to confuse the emotional significance of events, and most importantly, that these deficits show up in brain scans!
A missing internal connection between the feeling heart and the thinking brain is detectable.
Psychopaths are incapable of authentic deep emotions. In fact, when Robert Hare, a Canadian psychologist who spent
his career studying psychopathy, did brain scans on psychopaths while showing them two sets of words, one set of neutral
words with no emotional associations and a second set with emotionally charged words, while different areas of the brain
lit up in the non-psychopathic control group, in the psychopaths, both sets were processed in the same area of the brain,
the area that deals with language. They did not have an emotional reaction until they intellectually concluded that
it would be better if they had one, and then they whipped up an emotional response just for show.
The simplest, clearest and truest portrait of the psychopath is given in the titles of three seminal works on the
subject: Without Conscience by Robert Hare, The Mask of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, and Snakes in Suits
by Robert Hare and Paul Babiak. A psychopath is exactly that: conscienceless. The most important thing to remember is
that this lack of conscience is hidden from view behind a mask of normality that is often so convincing that even experts
are deceived. As a result, psychopaths become the Snakes in Suits that control our world.
Psychopaths lack a sense of remorse or empathy with others. They can be extremely charming and are experts at using
talk to charm and hypnotize their prey. They are also irresponsible. Nothing is ever their fault; someone else or the
world at large is always to blame for all of their problems or their mistakes. Martha Stout, in her book The Sociopath Next Door, identifies
what she calls the pity ploy. Psychopaths use pity to manipulate. They convince you to give them one more chance, and
to not tell anyone about what they have done. So another trait - and a very important one - is their ability to control
the flow of information.
They also seem to have little real conception of past or future, living entirely for their immediate needs and desires.
Because of the barren quality of their inner life, they are often seeking new thrills, anything from feeling the power
of manipulating others to engaging in illegal activities simply for the rush of adrenaline.
Another trait of the psychopath is what Lobaczewski calls their special psychological knowledge of normal people.
They have studied us. They know us better than we know ourselves. They are experts in knowing how to push our buttons,
to use our emotions against us. But beyond that, they even seem to have some sort of hypnotic power over us. When we
begin to get caught up in the web of the psychopath, our ability to think deteriorates, gets muddied. They seem to cast
some sort of spell over us. It is only later when we are no longer in their presence, out of their spell, that the clarity
of thought returns and we find ourselves wondering how it was that we were unable to respond or counter what they were
doing.
Psychopaths learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the
existence of other individuals similar to themselves. They also become conscious of being of a different world from
the majority of other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance.
Think about the ramifications of this statement: Psychopaths are, to some extent, self-aware as a group even in childhood!
Recognizing their fundamental difference from the rest of humanity, their allegiance would be to others of their kind,
that is, to other psychopaths.
Their own twisted sense of honor compels them to cheat and revile non-psychopaths and their values. In contradiction
to the ideals of normal people, psychopaths feel breaking promises and agreements is normal behavior.
Not only do they covet possessions and power and feel they have the right to them just because they exist and can
take them, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others; what they can plagiarize, swindle, and
extort are fruits far sweeter than those they can earn through honest labor. They also learn very early how their personalities
can have traumatizing effects on the personalities of non-psychopaths, and how to take advantage of this root of terror
for purposes of achieving their goals.
So now, imagine how human beings who are totally in the dark about the presence of psychopaths can be easily deceived
and manipulated by these individuals, gaining power in different countries, pretending to be loyal to the local populations
while at the same time playing up obvious and easily discernable physical differences between groups (such as race,
skin color, religion, etc). Psychologically normal humans would be set against one another on the basis of unimportant
differences (think of Rwanda 1994, think of Israelis and Palestinians) while the deviants in power, with a fundamental
difference from the rest of us, a lack of conscience, an inability to feel for another human being, reaped the benefits
and pulled the strings.
We are seeing the final desperate power-grab or endgame (Alex Jones) of brutal, cunning gangs of CIA drug-runners
and President-killers; money-laundering international bankers and their hit-men - economic and otherwise; corrupt military
contractors and gung-ho generals; corporate predators and their political enablers; brainwashers and mind-rapists euphemistically
known as psy-ops and PR specialists - in short, the whole crew of certifiable psychopaths running our so-called civilization.
And they are running scared.
Why does the Pathocracy fear losing its control? Because it is threatened by the spread of knowledge. The greatest
fear of any psychopath is of being found out.
Psychopaths go through life knowing that they are completely different from other people. Deep down they know something
is missing in them. They quickly learn to hide their lack of empathy, while carefully studying others' emotions so as
to mimic normalcy while cold-bloodedly manipulating the normals.
Today, thanks to new information technologies, we are on the brink of unmasking the psychopaths and building a civilization
of, by and for the healthy human being - a civilization without war, a civilization based on truth, a civilization in
which the saintly few rather than the diabolical few would gravitate to positions of power. We already have the knowledge
necessary to diagnose psychopathic personalities and keep them out of power. We have the knowledge necessary to dismantle
the institutions in which psychopaths especially flourish - militaries, intelligence agencies, large corporations, and
secret societies. We simply need to disseminate this knowledge, and the will to use it, as widely and as quickly as
possible.
Until the knowledge and awareness of pathological human beings is given the attention it deserves and becomes part
of the general knowledge of all human beings, there is no way that things can be changed in any way that is effective
and long-lasting. If half the people agitating for truth or stopping the war or saving the earth would focus their efforts,
time and money on exposing psychopathy, we might get somewhere.
One might ask if the weak point of our society has been our tolerance of psychopathic behavior? Our disbelief that
someone could seem like an intelligent leader and still be acting deceptively on their own behalf without conscience?
Or is it merely ignorance?
If the general voting public is not aware that there exists a category of people we sometimes perceive as almost
human, who look like us, who work with us, who are found in every race, every culture, speaking every language,
but who are lacking conscience, how can the general public take care to block them from taking over the hierarchies?
General ignorance of psychopathology may prove to be the downfall of civilization. We stand by like grazing sheep as
political/corporate elites throw armies of our innocent sons and daughters against fabricated enemies as a way of generating
trillions in profits, vying against each other for pathological hegemony.
Nearly everyone who has been part of an organization working for social change has probably seen the same dynamic
play out: The good and sincere work of many can be destroyed by the actions of one person. That doesn't bode well for
bringing some sort of justice to the planet! In fact, if psychopaths dominate political hierarchies, is it any wonder
that peaceful demonstrations have zero impact on the outcome of political decisions? Perhaps it is time to choose something
other than massive, distant hierarchies as a way of governing ourselves?
So many efforts to provide essays, research reports, exposés and books to leaders so they might take the new information
to heart and change their behavior have come to naught. For example, in the final paragraph of his revised edition of
the book, The Party's Over, Richard Heinberg writes:
I still believe that if the people of the world can be helped to understand the situation we are in, the options
available, and the consequences of the path we are currently on, then it is at least possible that they can be persuaded
to undertake the considerable effort and sacrifice that will be entailed in a peaceful transition to a sustainable,
locally based, decentralized, low-energy, resource-conserving social regime. But inspired leadership will be required.
And that is the just-murdered fantasy. There are no inspired leaders anymore. And in hierarchical structures
there can't be. Assuming that you can elect men or women to office who will see reason and the light of day, and who
will change and learn and grow, make compassionate decisions and take conscientious actions... is a foolish, childish
dream. Continuing to dream it simply plays into psychopathic agendas.
Only when the 75% of humanity with a healthy conscience come to understand that we have a natural predator, a group
of people who live amongst us, viewing us as powerless victims to be freely fed upon for achieving their inhuman ends,
only then will we take the fierce and immediate actions needed to defend what is preciously human. Psychological deviants
have to be removed from any position of power over people of conscience, period. People must be made aware that such
individuals exist and must learn how to spot them and their manipulations. The hard part is that one must also struggle
against those tendencies to mercy and kindness in oneself in order not to become prey.
The real problem is that the knowledge of psychopathy and how psychopaths rule the world has been effectively hidden.
People do not have the adequate, nuanced knowledge they need to really make a change from the bottom up. Again and again,
throughout history it has been meet the new boss, same as the old boss. If there is any work that is deserving
of full time efforts and devotion for the sake of helping humanity in this present dark time, it is the study of psychopathy
and the propagation of this information as far and wide and fast as possible.
There are only two things that can bring a psychopath under submission:
A bigger psychopath.
The non-violent, absolute refusal to submit to psychopathic controls no matter the consequences (non-violent
noncompliance).
Let us choose path 2! If individuals simply sat down and refused to lift a hand to further one single aim of the
psychopathic agenda, if people refused to pay taxes, if soldiers refused to fight, if government workers and corporate
drones and prison guards refused to go to work, if doctors refused to treat psychopathic elites and their families,
the whole system would grind to a screeching halt.
True change happens in the moment that a person becomes aware of psychopathy in all its chilling details. From this
new awareness, the world looks different, and entirely new actions can be taken. Distinguishing between human and psychopathic
qualities begins the foundation of responsibility upon which we have a real chance to create sustainable culture.
"...being fired (47) is far worse than foreclosure (30), and if it leads to a change in financial status (38) and/or
change to a different line of work (36) those are separate, additive stress factors. "
Now admittedly, this is not a validated instrument, but a widely used stress scoring test puts loss of spouse as
100 and divorce at 73. Foreclosure is 30, below sex difficulties (39), pregnancy (40), or personal injury (53). Change
in residence is 20.
Note that if we as a society were worried about psychological damage, being fired (47) is
far worse than foreclosure (30), and if it leads to a change in financial status (38) and/or change to a different line
of work (36) those are separate, additive stress factors.
Yet policy-makers have no qualms about advocating more open trade even though it produces industry restructurings
that produce unemployment that does more psychological damage than foreclosures. As a society, we'll pursue efficiency
that first cost blue collar jobs, and now that we've gotten inured to that, white collar ones as well (although Alan
Blinder draws the line there).
The Perfect Book (for the person who needs to be told the obvious), May 22, 2007 By
Robert Schmidt (Honolulu, HI USA)
-
The Dip, by Seth Godin, is a very small book (80 pages) that says, in short:
- Winners quit (regroup. cut their losses, switch gears) whenever necessary on the path to winning.
- Be the best, and the world comes knocking at your door.
- Work through the pain, because the reward is waiting for you further down the road.
If any of these comments/suggestions seem unclear, take at look at The Dip.
If you understand already, you've just saved $12.95.
This is not a "how-to" book. It is meant to be a motivational piece of writing. Work hard... the financial rewards are
greatest for the hardest worker. Work through "the dip," or that period where the gains don't seem to be coming as quickly
as you'd like. Don't stop running the marathon at mile 25.
Look, the very successful don't read these books. The barely successful can't read these books. So it is written
for the somewhat successful, or the person who is looking for "something" else. Here's the shortened version: "Work
and study hard. Don't give up. Persevere. However, consider alternatives. Share this book with others."
Don't get me wrong... this is not, in any sense, a bad book, or a book giving bad advice. To me, the advice seems
pretty obvious.
How oft we create a wave to spell trouble with our own perfections being true and honest with
good faith and intentions? We take on too much not saying what we want and that's exactly what the book reveals - the
niceness mistakes that 'Damage' us! Unconsciously, we have planted strong messages in the back of our minds and with
good intentions by our mentors, follow the moral code of conducts in life. Be good, be nice, be cool, share and care,
don't be selfish, be reasonable, don't hurt others, help friends, say yes and so on. In real, trying to reach perfection
and taking on too much lead us to exhaustion and sooner or later the ship of our life start sinking. The author gives
an insight to the nine unconscious mistakes we often make daily and helps us correct them and pulls a person out of
frustration and stress.
In not saying what you want and taking on too much, it leads to suppressed anger. Robinson provides healthy tips
to express anger to orchestrate a balanced life. Life itself is like riding a bike up and down roads that are bumpy,
curvy, hilly while juggling bananas, balloons and bowling balls says Robinson and so this is when you have a fall,
life needs balancing back to pedal and steer with too much/too little, too rational/too emotional,
to fast/too slow, too cautious/too reckless, too strong/too weak, etc. and remain upright empowering to get what you
need and deserve. Irony is, sometimes our niceness betrays us and this book is a key to understanding our
mistakes and bring about a 'change' in us. Robinson makes us a nicer person making one realise the mistakes, why we
make and how to give up.
In doing so, Robinson guides in:
1. Liberating from the bondage of other's expectations
2. Saying no and saving work overloads
3. Telling what we want and analyze what we receive is worth or not
4. Express anger that heal and maintain relationships too.
5. Face irrationality and criticism
6. Tell truth to friends when they fail us
7. Care for others but do no burden own trying to run their lives.
8. In pain and grief, feel competent enough
A change is always welcome even for the nice to be nicer and avoid the mistakes that we keep making out of the blue.
Our good intentions turn out to be damn-in-way for others who often misunderstand or shrug off not appreciating your
worth as human being. This book is indeed a gem collection for every person who has learned to live being 'Nice' and
remain being so without being emotionally hung up sometimes. Good Pick!
Former title was better., April 8, 2007
By Geoffrey J. Barnes "CyberBronco"
(Miami, FL United States)
The former title of this book was Good Intentions. From the information I gathered in the first few pages it was first
published in 1997. I am not sure if that refers to the first publication under the current title or the previous one.
I say that because the text feels more dated than just 10 years old.
I bought this book at Borders. The title caught my eye and a scan of the first few lines of each chapter confirmed
I would like this book. As someone who is always accused of being too nice a guy and winding up burned more than once
by relationships and employers, I thought I was on to something! Unfortunately I feel burned again by being naive enough
to buy this book. There are those reading this that will say I should have done my homework first before making a purchase.
Well, I'm sorry but I am not one of those jerks who sits in Barnes and Noble all day, taking up space and breaking in
the backs of books I never intend to purchase. I wish those chairs would run a few megawatts of electricity through
them every 10 minutes to get those creepy people out of the stores. They never buy anything and they smell bad! When
my cell phone rings in the store, they have the nerve to "Shush" me. Hey people! This is a retail establishment! Buy
something or move back into the library!
To give an example of what I am referring to in this book go to page 201, Mistake #8: Rescuing Others. The first
page gives an example of a guy with a nephew who is having trouble staying in school or keeping a job. This is actually
the chapter that made me buy the book. After getting a few pages into the chapter you realize they are only referring
to people who try to rescue addicts and nothing else. My nephew is not an addict, but he otherwise fits the description
in the example. Too bad this book didn't stick to its original title: Good Intentions. It is a better description of
what is being preached here.
Mistake #7 is called Giving Advice. It tells you to never give advice, and lists several reasons why you should not.
Ironically advice is what this book is based upon. The author is giving all of us poor "Nice" guys advice.
I believe the author had "good intentions" when he wrote this book. I believe the publisher had a great money making
idea when he re-released this book under its new title.
Budget Cuts Are Not the Only Way Workers Are Forced from Jobs: Workplace Abuse
“The mobbing syndrome is a malicious attempt to force a person out of the workplace through unjustified accusations,
humiliation, general harassment, emotional abuse, and/or terror. “It is a ‘ganging up’ by the leader(s) - organization,
superior, co-worker, or subordinate - who rallies others into systematic and frequent ‘mob-like’ behavior.
“Because
the organization ignores, condones, or even instigates the behavior, it can be said that the victim, seemingly helpless
against the powerful and many, is indeed ‘mobbed.’ The result is always injury - physical or mental distress or illness
and social misery and, most often, expulsion from the workplace.”
-Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace, by Davenport, Schwartz, and Elliott, 1999.
When a budget crisis hits a large institution, certain workers often seem to be treated as though they are“expendable,”
and are often the first forced out. But this is not the only manner in which workers are driven out of the workplace.
Mobbing has been recognized for many years in Europe, and it is also beginning to be identified as a serious workplace
problem in the United States. The authors above go on to say, “Mobbing is an emotional assault. Through innuendo, rumors,
and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly
participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace.”
“These actions escalate into
abusive and terrorizing behavior. The victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to
the behavior or may even plan or condone it... Frequently productivity is affected... Resignation, termination, or early
retirement, the negotiated voluntary or involuntary expulsion from the workplace, follows. For the victim, death - through
illness or suicide - may be the final chapter in the mobbing story.” -ibid
Much of the original research on mobbing was done by Swedish researcher Heinz Leymann in the 1980’s. His findings
have been slow in making it to the United States. However a number of local statutes have been enacted, and publications,
conferences, and resources have surfaced recently in the U.S. For example, Peralta Community College District in Oakland
recently established a regulation outlawing such behavior.
Often mobbing activities are directed at whistleblowers. Brian Martin, in Whistleblowing and Nonviolencen
(Peace and Change, Vol. 24, No. 3, January 1999) describes attacks on whistleblowers this way:
Whistleblowing, in casual usage, means speaking out from within an organization to expose a social problem or, more
generally, dissenting from dominant views or practices... The most common experience of whistleblowers is that they
are attacked. Instead of their messages being evaluated, the full power of the organization is turned against the whistleblower.
This is commonly called the shoot-the-messanger syndrome,... The means of suppression are impressive, nonetheless. They
include ostracism by colleagues, petty harassment (including snide remarks, assignment to trivial tasks and invoking
of regulations not normally enforced), spreading of rumors, formal reprimands, transfer to positions with no work (or
too much work), demotion, referral to psychiatrists, dismissal, and blacklisting.
Whistleblowers often discover that formal channels for complaint or remedy are ineffective or easily blocked. As
Martin explains, “Appeal bodies are part of the wider system of power and usually seek or reach accommodation with other
powerful groups. Hence such bodies are highly unlikely to support a single individual against elites from a major organization,
who usually have links with elites elsewhere.”
Whistleblowers have other resources, according to Martin: “One strategy is based on ‘mobilization,’ namely winning
supporters by circulating relevant documents, holding meetings and obtaining media coverage.” Howeve, such attempts
at mobilization are often met by more severe mobbing and harassment.
Kenneth Westhues, has identified academic institutions as a primary location for mobbing attacks:
“Ordinarily, colleagues
in positions of local power explain the situation in terms of failings of the targeted professor: bad teaching, too
few publications or the wrong kind, ethical misconduct, shirking of duties, failure to live up to legitimate expectations
of the job... Sometimes, however, the target's failings have little to do with why he or she is in trouble. The evidence
may point to a sharply contrasting explanation: that colleagues and/or administrators have ganged up on the targeted
professor for no good reason, to the point that collectively shunning, shaming, and tormenting the target bolsters the
group's solidarity, its esprit de corps.” - Workplace Mobbing in Academe (2004)
Westhues also tracks the trajectory of mobbing, and its consequences for victims and perpetrators. Here are more
of his comments:
“Mobbing ... is an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker.
Initiated most often by a person in a position of power or influence, mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate
the target. The urge travels through the workplace like a virus, infecting one person after another. The target comes
to be viewed as absolutely abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities, outside the circle of acceptance and respectability,
deserving only of contempt. As the campaign proceeds, a steadily larger range of hostile ploys and communications comes
to be seen as legitimate.”
“Not infrequently, mobbing spelled the end of the target’s career, marriage, health, and
livelihood. From a study of circumstances surrounding suicides in Sweden, Leymann estimated that about twelve percent
of people who take their own lives have recently been mobbed at work.... By Leymann’s and others' estimates, between
two and five percent of adults are mobbed sometime during their working lives. The other 95 percent, involved in the
process only as observers, bystanders, or perpetrators (though occasionally also as rescuers or guardians of the target),
mostly deny, gloss over, and forget the mobbing cases in which they took part. That is one reason it has taken so long
for the phenomenon to be identified and researched.
“Workplace mobbing is normally carried out politely, without any violence, and with ample written documentation.
Yet even without the blood, the bloodlust is essentially the same: contagion and mimicking of unfriendly, hostile acts
toward the target; relentless undermining of the target’s self-confidence; group solidarity against one whom all agree
does not belong; and the euphoria of collective attack.
“The worker most vulnerable to being mobbed is an average or high achiever who is personally invested in a formally
secure job, but who nonetheless somehow threatens or puts to shame co-workers and/or managers. “Ironically, it is in
workplaces where workers’ rights are formally protected that the complex and devious incursions on human dignity that
constitute mobbing most commonly occur. Union shops are one example... University faculties are another, on account
of the special protections of tenure and academic freedom professors have...Mobbing appears to be more common in the
professional service sector, where work is complex, goals ambiguous, best practices debatable, and market discipline
far away. Scapegoating is an effective if temporary means of achieving group solidarity, when it cannot be achieved
in a more constructive way. It is a turning inward, a diversion of energy away from serving nebulous external purposes
toward the deliciously clear, specific goal of ruining a disliked co-worker's life. Less time, skill, and energy are
required to write off a persistent critic as a "difficult professor" than to rebut the critic's arguments. Chalking
up dissent to the dissenter's real or imagined flaws of character relieves overworked administrators of uncertainty
and ambiguity. It lets them feel good about themselves.
Westhues (and others) point out that the best way to deal with mobbing is to nip it in the bud. Organizations not able
to do this are at least as much at fault as the perpetrators of the attacks. To stop it requires an open atmosphere
at the very beginning: “The basic priority for constructive resolution of workplace conflict, namely to keep the conversation
going, to let competing positions be expressed and the evidence for them reviewed, to listen to what opponents say,
to respond honestly and respectfully, to try not to silence anyone.”
Westhues lists three points for a strong academic
institution which has vaccinated itself against mobbing:
Protect freedom of speech.
Keep academic organization loose. A tight ship cannot be a university. It has to be full of contradiction and
brimming with debate in order to fulfill its public purposes.
Focus attention on these purposes, like educating youth, producing useful knowledge, and above all seeking truth.
These quotes on mobbing were collected and prepared by Karl Schaffer(schafferkarl@fhda.edu,
x8214), as a public service to the DeAnza College community. In addition to the sources cited above, google “mobbing”
or “workplace abuse” for more info.
If you think that cannot leave job because you cannot take the pay cuts, think again. There might be some compensating
factors which you overlooked. A better health is definitely one factor that should be entered into the equation... Also
kid might understand your decisions better that you think...
Changes in behavior begin with changes in attitudes. And there's no better place to build a proper attitude than in
the youth of America.
Cool to Be Frugal
Professor Depew was once again on top of the changing attitudes story with point number 5 of
Monday's Five Things.
We ran across an interesting piece in USA Today this morning playing right into our theme of a growing wave of resentment
against consumption and a disassociation from luxury goods and symbols of wealth.
According to the article, "Teens
Turn to Thrift as Jobs Vanish and Prices Rise," rising costs of typical teenage indulgences are causing teens
to do something they rarely do: be thrifty. As the article notes, "It's even becoming cool to be frugal."
Let's take a closer look at the article.
The stalwart retailers of teen apparel, such as Abercrombie, based in the Columbus, Ohio, suburb of New Albany,
and American Eagle Outfitters Inc., are reporting sluggish sales, defying the myth that teen spending is recession-proof:
It holds up longer, but can eventually fold.
It's even becoming cool to be frugal.
Last week, Ellegirl.com, the teen offshoot of Elle magazine,
launched a new video fixture called Self-Made Girl, which shows teens how to make clothes
and accessories. The first video offers tips on how to create a prom clutch.
"It's a little tacky in the economic unrest to tote a big logo bag," said Holly Siegel, the site's senior editor.
She said it's no longer about teens "one-upping each other," but rather where they can get it cheap.
Economists say this teen spending slump could be the worst in 17 years, when teen frugality led to the demise
of once-hot Merry-Go-Round Enterprises Inc. and ushered in an era of flannel shirts and torn jeans.
Sales at teen retailers open at least a year averaged a 0.5% decline last year, compared to a 3.3% increase in
2006 and a 12.1% gain in 2005, according to a UBS-International Council of Shopping Centers tally. Among the few
bright spots is Aeropostale Inc., whose jeans are about 30% cheaper than Abercrombie & Fitch. Candace Corlett, principal
at consulting firm WSL Strategic Retail, said low-price chains like H&M and Steve & Barry's should do well.
"It is way cooler to get a super deal on that shirt rather than being able to spend the most money on something,"
said Anna D'Agrosa, director of Consumer Insights at The Zandl Group, a market research company focusing on teens.
"Kids are becoming really aware of what is happening to their economy and to their families."
Teen Awareness
"Kids are becoming really aware of what is happening to their economy and to their families."
Every teen is going to have a friend or classmate whose parents lost their home.
Walking Away Will Be The Next Mortgage Crisis. And as foreclosures skyrocket and parents lose their homes, these
kids will remember it for the rest of their lives.
Secular changes in behavior start with secular changes in attitudes. That secular change in attitudes is now underway
and it's not just with teens either. Many baby boomers facing retirement are half scared to death.
Greenspan had the wind of spendthrift consumers at his back. Bernanke has the wind of increasingly frugal consumers
blowing briskly in his face. The implications should be obvious. Those who think
Deflation
In A Fiat Regime cannot happen, need to think again.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Human imaging studies have for the first time identified brain circuitry associated with social status, according to
researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) of the National Institutes of Health.
They found that different brain areas are activated when a person moves up or down in a pecking
order – or simply views perceived social superiors or inferiors. Circuitry activated by important events
responded to a potential change in hierarchical status as much as it did to winning money.Our position in social
hierarchies strongly influences motivation as well as physical and mental health,” said NIMH Director Thomas R Insel,
M.D. “This first glimpse into how the brain processes that information advances our understanding of an important factor
that can impact public health.”
Caroline Zink, Ph.D., Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, M.D., Ph.D., and colleagues of the NIMH Genes Cognition and Psychosis
Program, report on their functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study in the April 24, 2008, issue of the journal
Neuron. Meyer-Lindenberg is now director of Germany’s Central Institute of Mental Health.
Prior studies have shown that social status strongly predicts health. Animals chronically
stressed by their hierarchical position have high rates of cardiovascular and depression/anxiety-like syndromes.
A classic study of British civil servants found that the lower one ranked, the higher the odds for developing cardiovascular
disease and dying early. Lower social rank likely compromises health through psychological
effects, such as by limiting control over one’s life and interactions with others. However, in hierarchies
that allow for more upward mobility, those at the top who stand to lose their positions can have higher risk for stress-related
illness. Yet little is known about how the human brain translates such factors into health risk.
To find out, the NIMH researchers created an artificial social hierarchy in which 72 participants played an interactive
computer game for money. They were assigned a status that they were told was based on their playing skill. In fact,
the game outcomes were predetermined and the other “players” simulated by computer. While their brain activity was monitored
by fMRI, participants intermittently saw pictures and scores of an inferior and a superior “player” they thought were
simultaneously playing in other rooms.
Although they knew the perceived players’ scores would not affect their own outcomes or reward –and were instructed
to ignore them – participants’ brain activity and behavior were highly influenced by their
position in the implied hierarchy.
“The processing of hierarchical information seems to be hard-wired, occurring even outside of an explicitly competitive
environment, underscoring how important it is for us,” said Zink.
Key study findings included:
The area that signals an event’s importance, called the ventral striatum, responded to the prospect of a rise
or fall in rank as much as it did to the monetary reward, confirming the high value accorded
social status.
Just viewing a superior human “player,” as opposed to a perceived inferior one or a computer, activated an area
near the front of the brain that appears to size people up – making interpersonal judgments and assessing social
status. A circuit involving the mid-front part of the brain that processes the intentions and motives of others
and emotion processing areas deep in the brain activated when the hierarchy became unstable, allowing for upward
and downward mobility.
Performing better than the superior “player” activated areas higher and toward the front of the brain controlling
action planning, while performing worse than an inferior “player” activated areas lower in the brain associated
with emotional pain and frustration.
The more positive the mood experienced by participants while at the top of an unstable hierarchy, the stronger
was activity in this emotional pain circuitry when they viewed an outcome that threatened to move them down in status.
In other words, people who felt more joy when they won also felt more pain when they lost.
“Such activation of emotional pain circuitry may underlie a heightened risk for stress-related health problems among
competitive individuals,” suggested Meyer-Lindenberg.
In collaboration with other NIMH researchers, Zink and colleagues are planning follow-up studies to explore brain
activity in response to the experimental social hierarchy in patients with mental illnesses like schizophrenia or autism,
which are marked by social and thinking deficits. The researchers will also be exploring whether particular gene variants
might differentially affect brain responses in similar experiments.
Source: National Institute of Mental Health
Comment
Posted by superhuman 20 minutes ago
Provide size of the samples and how other possible explanations were ruled out, theres to many
idiotic social 'science' to take such articles seriously without being able to at least verify the assumptions and statistics
behind them.
For example where is the proof that subjects really interpreted results in terms of social
hierarchy? What authors think was associated with social status can simply be an anticipation of difficulty of the game
- since player rank is linked to gaming ability if you see a player higher ranked you know he won more games therefore
you anticipate tougher game and enjoy victory more, loosing to inferior player is also more frustrating.
While this case has nothing to do with toxic managers, it demonstrates an interesting mechanism at work in positions
of power:
“Sex and power are extremely connected, because they’re basically an expression of this huge energy that these people
have.” '.
..when you get into a position of power, you think you’re above the law.”
... "There’s no tenure. It’s often hard to know what the criteria for success
are. It’s either all or nothing — you either win or you lose. And so it inspires a risk-taking
person to go into that line of work. But on the public side, they’re supposed to show stability and responsibility,
and so this risky nature may show itself more on the private side.”
It keeps happening. Recklessly, shamelessly, cavalierly — as if this time they’re the ones who will somehow manage
to get away with it all.
But many of them don’t.
Congressmen, senators, governors, presidents, mayors — politicians at all levels keep starring in this familiar and
non-partisan soap opera rerun. They engage in clandestine sexual entanglements, commonly cloaked in the tawdry textures
of hotel pseudonyms and airport bathrooms and pay-by-the-hour copulation. All too often, their stealthy frolics then
poison their political careers.
And now add to the lengthening list Gov.
Eliot
Spitzer, husband, father of three teenage daughters, who authorities on Monday said had been involved with a ring
of prostitutes.
“I think biologists could tell you this has something to do with natural selection — the person who acquires power
becomes the alpha male,” said Tom Fiedler, who teaches a course in press and politics at
Harvard’s Kennedy School. He was involved in reporting
Gary Hart’s
notorious fling with Donna Rice in 1987 that terminated the senator’s presidential bid.
Politics and sex is an old story, and as Mr. Fiedler and others point out, it simply reinforces the lessons of the
aphrodisiac of power taught in Shakespeare. Its prime characters constitute a crowded society.
Governor Spitzer’s startling appearance with his wife, Silda, at his side is itself something of a contrapuntal answer
to New Jersey’s 2004 entry in this dubious catalog of political misbehavior, Gov.
James
E. McGreevey’s relinquishing office after disclosing a gay affair.
By now, many of the more publicized escapades have become embedded in political lore, from President
Bill Clinton
encounters with
Monica
Lewinsky to Senator Bob Packwood and his unwanted advances on women to Representative
Mark Foley
and his lewd e-mails to House pages.
Who can forget the late Wilbur D. Mills, the one-time powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, and his
dalliances back in 1974 with the stripper Fanne Foxe? She’s the one who barreled out of Mr. Mills’s car and waded into
the Tidal Basin in Washington when the park police stopped them. Enterprisingly, she went and changed her name from
the Argentine Firecracker to the Tidal Basin Bombshell, and got a book out of her adventures.
There was, as well, Representative Gary Condit, whose career imploded when it came out that he had been involved
with
Chandra
Levy, an intern who was murdered. And Wayne Hays, the Ohio representative, who quit in 1976 after it was revealed
that the job requirements of Elizabeth Ray were less as a secretary than as his mistress. In her famous words: “I can’t
type. I can’t file. I can’t even answer the phone.”
Sexual missteps among politicians are nothing peculiar to the United States, having firm grounding in England, for
instance, and turning up with good regularity throughout the world. But they seem to reach more absurdist proportions
in this country, and have almost the quality of a catch-me-if-you-can game at a time when private borders have gotten
extremely porous.
“There is a broader anxiety about what is private anymore,” said Paul Apostolidis, a political science professor
at Whitman College and the co-editor of the book “Public Affairs: Politics in the Age of Sex Scandals.”
“It’s not that politicians are behaving more badly. We’re just learning about it more often.”
But why does it go on repeatedly when the ramifications can be so dire?
“I don’t see why we would expect politics to be more free of the psychological contradictions of other humans beings,”
Mr. Apostolidis said. “People do self-destructive things that are not rational.”
Psychologists mention the sense of entitlement felt by those who attain political standing that blinds them to the
consequences of their actions. And they say that ambitious politicians are invigorated by risk and feel impervious.
Dr. Frank Farley, a psychologist at
Temple University, said that many politicians are what he calls Type T personalities, with T standing for thrill-seeking.
“Politics is an uncertain business,” he said. “You’re at the whim of the electorate. There’s no tenure. It’s often hard
to know what the criteria for success are. It’s either all or nothing — you either win or you lose.
And so it inspires a risk-taking person to go into that line of work. But on the public side,
they’re supposed to show stability and responsibility, and so this risky nature may show itself more on the private
side.”
Despite the intensified scrutiny of politicians in recent times, and the ongoing parade of those who do get caught,
Dr. Farley said public officials keep acting recklessly because their nature is hard to restrain. “It’s deep,” he said.
“It’s very hard to throttle back.”
Dr. Judy Kuriansky, an adjunct professor of clinical psychology at
Columbia University’s Teachers College, said that “sex and power are extremely connected,
because they’re basically an expression of this huge energy that these people have.”
Not uncommonly, she said, politicians speak out vigorously against the very behavior that they then indulge in, as
is the case with Governor Spitzer. “You project wrong onto others that is symptomatic of your own behavior,” she said.
“It’s called a defense mechanism. Basically, it’s unconscious.”
Moreover, she added, “Even though Spitzer is a lawyer, when you get into a position of power,
you think you’re above the law.”
Some secrets do in fact have long lives. Not until 2004, three decades afterward, did it come out that Neil Goldschmidt,
who became governor of Oregon in the 1980s, had sexually abused a 14-year-old babysitter while he was mayor of Portland.
Well, what could Oregon legislators do at that point? They took his official portrait and hung it in a less visible
spot in the state capitol.
Not always, of course, are political careers ruined by sexual irregularities. Rep.
Barney
Frank continued to win re-election in Massachusetts even after it was disclosed in 1989 that he had hired a male
prostitute who ran a brothel out of his apartment.
It is sometimes speculated that certain politicians, at least subconsciously, want to be caught and have their careers
upended. But do they?
“I’ve never seen it,” said Dr. Farley. “I don’t believe it’s a factor with these people.
It’s just in their nature to push things. I don’t think they have a death wish. I think they have a life
wish. They just love all aspects of life — some of it too much.”
Workplace bullying, such as belittling comments, persistent criticism of work and withholding resources, appears to
inflict more harm on employees than sexual harassment, say researchers who presented their findings at a conference
today.
“As sexual harassment becomes less acceptable in society, organizations may be more attuned to helping victims, who
may therefore find it easier to cope,” said lead author M. Sandy Hershcovis, PhD, of the University of Manitoba. “In
contrast, non-violent forms of workplace aggression such as incivility and bullying are not illegal, leaving victims
to fend for themselves.”
This finding was presented at the Seventh International Conference on Work, Stress and Health, co-sponsored by the
American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the Society for Occupational
Health Psychology.
Hershcovis and co-author Julian Barling, PhD, of Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada, reviewed 110 studies conducted
over 21 years that compared the consequences of employees’ experience of sexual harassment and workplace aggression.
Specifically, the authors looked at the effect on job, co-worker and supervisor satisfaction, workers’ stress, anger
and anxiety levels as well as workers’ mental and physical health. Job turnover and emotional ties to the job were also
compared.
The authors distinguished among different forms of workplace aggression.
Incivility included rudeness and discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviors.
Bullying included persistently criticizing employees’ work; yelling; repeatedly reminding employees of mistakes;
spreading gossip or lies; ignoring or excluding workers; and insulting employees’ habits, attitudes or private life.
Interpersonal conflict included behaviors that involved hostility, verbal aggression and angry exchanges.
Both bullying and sexual harassment can create negative work environments and unhealthy consequences for employees,
but the researchers found that workplace aggression has more severe consequences. Employees who experienced bullying,
incivility or interpersonal conflict were more likely to quit their jobs, have lower well-being, be less satisfied with
their jobs and have less satisfying relations with their bosses than employees who were sexually harassed, the researchers
found.
Furthermore, bullied employees reported more job stress, less job commitment and higher levels of anger and anxiety.
No differences were found between employees experiencing either type of mistreatment on how satisfied they were with
their co-workers or with their work.
“Bullying is often more subtle, and may include behaviors that do not appear obvious to others,” said Hershcovis.
“For instance, how does an employee report to their boss that they have been excluded from lunch? Or that they are being
ignored by a coworker? The insidious nature of these behaviors makes them difficult to deal with and sanction.”
From a total of 128 samples that were used, 46 included subjects who experienced sexual harassment, 86 experienced
workplace aggression and six experienced both. Sample sizes ranged from 1,491 to 53,470 people. Participants ranged
from 18 to 65 years old. The work aggression samples included both men and women. The sexual harassment samples examined
primarily women because, Hershcovis said, past research has shown that men interpret and respond differently to the
behaviors that women perceive as sexual harassment.
This seems an opportune time for Angrybears to gird up their loins financially. For those who have not already succumbed
to the lures of the “greater fool” theory of housing markets, please be aware that in declining economies the clever
may turn to other schemes to part you from your cash. Ponzi operators such as hedge funds, private equity funds, Nigerian
con artists with “special opportunites” and other wickedly complex characters will importune you to “invest” for quick
returns. Pyramid scheme operators will urge you to “invest in yourself and your future” with the promise of riches and
income streams in perpetuity by recruiting friends and neighbors to buy and sell inventories of overpriced crap.
- A pyramid scheme is a form of fraud similar in some ways to a Ponzi scheme, relying as it does on a disbelief
in financial reality, including the hope of an extremely high rate of return. However, several characteristics distinguish
pyramid schemes from Ponzi schemes:
- In a Ponzi scheme, the schemer acts as a “hub” for the victims, interacting with all of them directly. In
a pyramid scheme, those who recruit additional participants benefit directly (in fact, failure to recruit typically
means no investment return).
- A Ponzi scheme claims to rely on some esoteric investment approach, insider
connections, etc., and often attracts well-to-do investors; pyramid schemes explicitly claim that new money
will be the source of payout for the initial investments.
- A pyramid scheme is bound to collapse a lot faster, simply because of the demand for exponential increases
in participants to sustain it. By contrast, Ponzi schemes can survive simply by getting most participants to
"reinvest" their money, with a relatively small number of new participants.
- A bubble. A bubble relies on suspension of belief and an expectation of large profits, but it is not the
same as a Ponzi scheme. A bubble involves ever-rising (and unsustainable) prices in an open market (be that
shares of a stock, housing prices, the price of tulip bulbs, or anything else). As long as buyers are willing
to pay ever-increasing prices, sellers can get out with a profit. And there doesn't need to be a schemer behind
a bubble. (In fact, a bubble can arise without any fraud at all - for example, housing prices in a local market
that rise sharply but eventually drop sharply because of overbuilding.) Bubbles are often said to be based on
"greater fool" theory.
Armed with this knowledge and alert to these potential pitfalls, I would only add that the operators of such schemes
have identifiable personality
characteristics. From investigator Bill Branscum we learn:
His system makes it possible for him to pay incredible rates of return. The elaborate office, exquisitely tailored
suits, involvement with the church, and generosity toward charitable organizations are all classic window dressing.
. . Ponzi or Pyramid - either way, the con artists who perpetrate these scams are swindlers with sociopathic personalities
who view everyone around them as bit part players in their own personal play. These people are devious beyond comprehension.
Uninhibited by anything akin to conscience or remorse, they have no mercy and feel nobody's pain. Charm and charisma
can conceal a lot. It is hard to imagine that one of the most likeable people you ever met in your life, totally
trusted by those you respect and admire, would destroy everything you worked your entire life to build while looking
you in the eye and smiling in your face all the while.
Oh my!! Is there any way to protect yourself from these smooth operators? Yes. Become a
psychopath. That’s your best shot, according
to a study.
Wanted: psychopaths to play the stock market. The US team found that people with certain brain injuries which suppress
their emotions could make the best stock market traders. They took a selection of 41 people of normal IQ, 15 of
whom had suffered lesions on the areas of the brain that affect emotions, and made them play a simple investment
game. Those with brain damage significantly out performed those without, the researchers from Stanford Graduate
School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Iowa found.
Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do,
no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles
with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you
had taken.
And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without
question, like gullible fools.
Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically
different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact
that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your
cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that
they seldom even guess at your condition.
In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please,
with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.
You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by
their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.
... ... ...
Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....
The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and
yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as
schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality
- and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered
"alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.
The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet,
too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain
our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.
Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent
psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over,
and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.
We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent
sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides
little defense.
Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying
to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound,
the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view
as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.
Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we
intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.
Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely
ruthless social snipers.
The presence or absence of conscience
is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.
What differentiates a sociopath who lives off the labors of others from one who occasionally robs convenience stores,
or from one who is a contemporary robber baron - or what makes the difference between an ordinary bully and a sociopathic
murderer - is nothing more than social status, drive, intellect, blood lust, or simple opportunity.
What distinguishes all of these people from the rest of us is an utterly empty hole in the psyche, where there should
be the most evolved of all humanizing functions. [Martha Stout, Ph.D.,
The Sociopath Next Door] (highly recommended)
By Flexo on Wednesday, October 24th,
2007 in Career and Work |
12 Comments
Many of us depend on our employers for our livelihood. Even those not living paycheck-to-paycheck count on being employed
to build up savings, invest and insure for the future, and of course pay the bills. Here are some things to look out
for. If these apply to you, start hedging your bets and planning for what life will be like without your job.
Fewer responsibilities. Are you being asked to train others on your job? If your responsibilities are
being transferred to someone else—and you are not receiving more responsibilities to compensate—you may be on your
way to being downsized, rightsized, or “made redundant.”
Exclusion. If you are no longer included in the types of meetings of which you were formerly a part,
the group may be moving on without you. It is entirely possible that your boss is recognizing that you have an excessive
amount of work to do and is excluding you to allow you to complete other assignments, but if this is not communicated
to you, your team is simply getting used to working without you.
Blame for small mistakes. If your small mistakes — everyone makes them—are becoming topics of conversation
or your bosses are assigning blame to you for other small problems, there are at least two things happening. First,
recognizing your errors will help your boss feel further justified for letting you go. Also, once you are
gone, it will be much easier to assign blame to you. You will not be around to defend yourself.
Talk around the water cooler. Word travels fast. If you hear a rumor that the company has it in for you,
chances are it’s true. If not, someone has a personal vendetta against you and is starting rumors to make you crazy.
I see that as a highly unlikely possibility. Either way, I wouldn’t want to stay in either environment, so striking
the first blow by quitting may keep you sane.
Bad review. If your year has progressed well but you’re surprised with low ratings at your annual or
semi-annual performance review, you could be on your way out. Bad reviews shouldn’t sneak up on you. If you truly
are performing poorly and the review is the first time you’ve received negative feedback, then there are communication
problems within your department. But if you feel you’re doing well, there should be no disagreement. If those negative
reviews were unsuspected and undeserved, start looking for a new job.
It’s good to be prepared for losing your job even if there are no signs yet. Anything can happen, and anything can
happen quickly.
Dilemma: Bosses who sabotage your career
Solution: "Document for yourself what you do," Bond says. "Be politically savvy in not out-shining the boss and showing
the boss in a professional manner how your contributions bring value to him/her, as well as to the bottom line by which
you all are measured."
Dilemma: Bullying
Solution: More than half of American workers have been the victim of, or heard about, supervisors/employers behaving
abusively by making sarcastic jokes/teasing remarks, rudely interrupting, publicly criticizing, giving dirty looks,
yelling at subordinates or ignoring them as if they were invisible, according to a 2007 survey by the Employment Law
Alliance. Not to mention the 44 percent who said they have worked for a supervisor or employer whom they consider abusive.
"Document and collect evidence of bullying incidents. If workplace violence is an issue, do not delay in reporting
concerns to your boss or HR," Bond says. If it's a personality conflict, confront the bully one-on-one in private about
what was done and what's not acceptable, Bond adds. Seek legal counsel for strategy support.
If some children seem like they were born to be bad, new research suggests it may be true.
In a study of adult twins and their children, researchers found that genes, rather than parents' own argumentative
behavior, seemed key in the children's odds of serious conduct problems — like bullying,
skipping school and shoplifting.
One of the most distinguishing feature of toxic managers is "humor impairment".
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors
suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden:
Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them
of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom
quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their
test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this
miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically,
improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the
limitations of their abilities.
[1] Suspect flattery. Sincere compliments from a coworker or a boss are nice, but outrageous
flattery is often an attempt to draw you into a psychopath's snare. If you feel your ego is being massaged,
you may be dealing with a psychopath. Be careful.
[2] Take labels and titles with a grain of salt. Just because someone is older, has a higher position or more degrees,
or is wealthier than you are does not mean his or her moral judgment is better than yours.
[3] Always question authority when it conflicts with your own sense of right and wrong. This may be hard to do,
but it is crucial to your own career and well-being.
[4] Never agree to help a psychopath conceal his or her suspicious activities at work.
[5] If you are afraid of your boss, never confuse this feeling with respect.
[6] Realistically assess the damage to your life. If it's too great, you may have to leave.
Remember that living well is the best revenge.
Here are some things you should consider before taking any action:
1. Keep doing your job and don’t let your emotions get the best of you. Remain professional
and don’t do or say anything you may later regret.
2. Document your work and any positive comments others in the company have made about you in case you ever need
to refer to examples of your track record with the company should the need arise i.e. if you get fired and your
boss blames you for the problem(s).
3. Remember that when you start talking to others in the company about the problems you have with your boss,
your comments could end up reaching your boss and causing even more trouble.
4. Depending on the actual problem with your boss, you might consider speaking with them directly about it as
they may not even be aware it is a problem. First, make sure the problem is real and that you’re doing everything
you could be doing so that your boss can’t put the problem back in your lap.
5. Consider approaching a member of Human Resources to confidentially discuss the problem. If the treatment you
are receiving is illegal (i.e. harassment) you might consult directly with a labor lawyer especially if you don’t
feel comfortable going to HR.
6. Find examples (i.e. on Internet career websites, from labor organizations) that specify
options for handling your specific problem. Dealing with a mean manager would be quite different from
dealing with a manager who doesn’t delegate properly so look for examples of similar situations that other people
have faced and how they handled it.
7. Going above your manager’s head and speaking with someone above them (ie. their manager) is probably not a
good idea especially if it gets back to your boss that you did this.
8. Keep your eyes open for opportunities to transfer somewhere else within the company and short of that, look
to see what jobs are available outside the company just in case it comes to this.
Although you will ideally reach a positive conclusion without having to change jobs, sometimes this is just not possible.
At the end of the day, no job is worth keeping if you have a bad boss who is making your life hell and if it appears
they aren’t going to change or leave the company.
Carl Mueller is an Internet entrepreneur and professional recruiter who wants to help you
find your dream career.
Ezine editors/Webmasters: Please feel free to reprint this article in its entirety in your ezine or on your website.
Please don’t change any of the content and please ensure that you include the above bio that shows my website URL. If
you would like me to address any specific career topics in future articles, please let me know.
Here are some things you should consider before taking any action:
1. Keep doing your job and don’t let your emotions get the best of you. Remain professional and don’t do or say
anything you may later regret.
2. Document your work and any positive comments others in the company have made about you in case you ever need
to refer to examples of your track record with the company should the need arise ie. if you get fired and your boss
blames you for the problem(s).
3. Remember that when you start talking to others in the company about the problems you have with your boss,
your comments could end up reaching your boss and causing even more trouble.
4. Depending on the actual problem with your boss, you might consider speaking with them directly about it as
they may not even be aware it is a problem. First, make sure the problem is real and that you’re doing everything
you could be doing so that your boss can’t put the problem back in your lap.
5. Consider approaching a member of Human Resources to confidentially discuss the problem. If the treatment you
are receiving is illegal (ie. harassment) you might consult directly with a labor lawyer especially if you don’t
feel comfortable going to HR.
6. Find examples (ie. on Internet career websites, from labor organizations) that specify options for handling
your specific problem. Dealing with a mean manager would be quite different from dealing with a manager who doesn’t
delegate properly so look for examples of similar situations that other people have faced and how they handled it.
7. Going above your manager’s head and speaking with someone above them (ie. their manager) is probably not a
good idea especially if it gets back to your boss that you did this.
8. Keep your eyes open for opportunities to transfer somewhere else within the company and short of that, look
to see what jobs are available outside the company just in case it comes to this.
Although you will ideally reach a positive conclusion without having to change jobs, sometimes this is just not possible.
At the end of the day, no job is worth keeping if you have a bad boss who is making your life hell and if it appears
they aren’t going to change or leave the company.
Carl Mueller is an Internet entrepreneur and professional recruiter who wants to help you
find your dream career.
Ezine editors/Webmasters: Please feel free to reprint this article in its entirety in your ezine or on your website.
Please don’t change any of the content and please ensure that you include the above bio that shows my website URL. If
you would like me to address any specific career topics in future articles, please let me know.
... In the years since, I've heard countless tales of bosses who rant and rave, give their employees the silent treatment,
ignore them, mock them, glare at them, insult and belittle them in front of others, spread false rumors about them,
withhold the information they need to do their work -- and take credit for everything they've done. Employees working
in these conditions often find their physical health, mental health, and confidence so destroyed that they lack even
the confidence to leave and instead find themselves trapped in a world of psychological violence.
In talking to people about their work, it has been so hard to find people without at least one such experience that
it's made me wonder how systemic bullying is in our business environment. The lowest estimate says that 12% of workers
are bullied; others put it as high as 50%. Women are as likely as men to be toxic bosses -- but women are 80% more likely
to be the targets. Men pick on women -- and women pick on women. The abused are neither young nor thin skinned but tend
to be in their 40s, with years of experience behind them. And toxic bosses don't work alone
-- 77% of them enlist others to help. So widespread is this phenomenon that lawyers seeking some legal remedy
have found that in many cases, people see abuse and stress as simply intrinsic to employment."
Is a poor economy to blame? High unemployment combined with an increasing dependence on temporary and contingent
labor means that companies have more vulnerable employees to pick on. But while the economic slump may exacerbate bullying,
it doesn't explain why it is so deeply embedded in our workplace culture.
... ... ...
A business culture that celebrates aggression, toughness, endurance, and the ability to endure pain, as our does,
runs dangerously close to endorsing bully bosses. As long as we perpetuate the myth that business is not emotional,
we fail to develop the language we need to deal with the emotion which business will always engender. Moreover, our
tradition of keeping our work lives and our private lives severely compartmentalized makes it feasible for people to
behave at work in ways they would never dream of behaving at home.
... ... ...
What to do if you are being bullied:
Recognize what is happening.
Tell someone so you can hear yourself describe what is happening to you -- and so you can get some visibility
onto the bad behavior. And keep a journal: write down everything that happens so you know
you aren't losing your mind and you have the facts when you need them.
Try to figure out whether you are in a toxic culture or just working for a toxic boss
Good cultures squeeze out bullies; you may be able to outlast yours. But toxic cultures will destroy you. Leave
while you still can. If you don't reject bullying, you start believing you aren't worthy of better treatment.
Keep a copy of any bullying emails, notes, and letters.
The toxic boss has long been a cliché of management tomes, career guides and Web sites. Whether they're screamers,
door slammers or high-functioning sociopaths, such managers can badly wound careers and trample workers' self-esteem
in ways that amount to psychological abuse. They also can infect entire workplaces.
But here's an equally disturbing thought: People sometimes actually prefer bad bosses and can be complicit in making
them destructive. So contends a new book, "The Allure of Toxic Leaders," by Jean Lipman-Blumen, an organizational-behavior
professor at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, Calif. "It's sometimes hard to see through that smokescreen
of charisma when you first encounter a boss or leader," she says.
Toxic leaders manipulate deep psychological needs in their subordinates, Ms.
Lipman-Blumen finds. Because people need to feel secure or special, she says, they may overlook early signs of unethical
or otherwise damaging behavior.
She also believes that people sometimes repeat unhealthy family dynamics with their bosses because they're drawn
to a situation that feels familiar. Once trapped by a destructive boss, individuals frequently
experience damaged self-esteem and disorientation that make escape difficult. "Certainly, a toxic leader
who promises to keep you safe is absolutely addictive," she says.
Ms. Laichter says her boss initially "seemed really smart and intelligent and at the same time hip." The young woman's
enthusiasm about landing a new job last year blinded her to her superior's true colors. Nowadays, she steers clear of
potentially bad employment situations by bringing a list of questions about how long workers have been there, among
other things. She rejects offers if she doesn't like the answers.
Other experts argue that bad bosses are so common that almost everyone will work for one someday.
"Organizations need to understand how prevalent the bad-boss phenomenon is," says Gary Lahey, co-founder of
www.badbossology.com, a Web site devoted to the matter. A
recent survey completed by site visitors found that 48% would fire their boss if they could, while 29% said they would
have their boss assessed by a workplace psychologist.
If you become snared in the bad-boss trap, begin by assessing the situation. Ask yourself whether you may be contributing
to the problem. Can you minimize it by performing your job differently? Observe how others interact with your manager.
Some bad bosses have personality disorders that you won't be able to change -- but you need to figure out how much of
the problem begins with them.
Some career specialists recommend talking to a boss about the offensive behavior. Be specific
and approach him or her with calm and respect. "The employee should avoid presenting their case from an emotional
standpoint, because when emotions run high, situations can spiral out of control," says Linda Matias, president of CareerStrides,
a coaching company in Smithtown, N.Y.
Be careful about talking to co-workers about your problems with your manager. "Once they know you're in the boss's
crosshairs, there's a darn good chance that those people are worried about their own careers and they're not going to
protect you," Mr. Lahey says.
The human-resources department isn't always the answer. One recent study found
that only 1% of workers surveyed felt the HR department was helpful in resolving their problems with a difficult boss.
Even if that finding is an extreme, HR officials must investigate claims of harassment, Ms. Matias notes, so it can
be difficult to keep your complaint from eventually reaching your boss.
It's helpful to keep a log of your boss's abusive behavior. Ask a good employment
lawyer about your legal options -- whether or not you quit. And be respectfully assertive with your superior, as toxic
bosses frequently victimize people who acquiesce easily.
Finally, enlarge your internal network by cultivating relationships with more-senior managers.
"The extent to which you have power," says Mr. Lahey, "is the extent to which a bad boss isn't going to mess with
you."
Mr Angry: one of the classic profiles of a toxic boss. Experts have identified a new breed of nightmare bosses - "toxic
managers". They have pinpointed the traits that they say make workers life hell and are bad for business.
Typically a toxic manager will shout at staff, have few academic qualifications, be arrogant and poor emotional
control.
... ... ...
"Having a toxic manager makes workers unhappy and incompetent," said Professor Adrian Furnham, of University College,
London.
He presented his findings to the British Psychological Society's occupational psychology conference in Bristol yesterday.
Prof Furnham, who pooled together previous studies as well as conducting his own research, said the number of toxic
managers remains mercifully low - but still causes misery for thousands of workers.
He produced a checklist on how to spot a toxic boss, including characteristics like moodiness, unpredicability,
restlessness and selfishness, He told the delegates that the characteristics of bad parents could be translated
to managers - with similar effects on other people.
... ... ...
Checklist
How you can spot if you have a toxic boss. Your boss:
Is inconsistent and unpredictable so you can never be sure what they will say or do.
Has a low tolerance of provocation and be known for their moodiness.
Appears self-indulgent and often deeply selfish.
Displays a total lack of long-term planning for future eventualities for themselves, their staff or their product.
Frequently appears restless, seeming to become bored easily and unable to pay attention.
Has learning problems reflected in the fact they may have few educational qualifications.
Shows poor emotional control causing them to shout, weep, sulk and gush with little embarrassment or control.
Places little value on skills and despise attempts by staff to upgrade their skills.
Advice is somewhat naive. Take it with a grain of salt...
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - It's only Wednesday and you can't wait for the weekend. The boss is driving you crazy. You
don't know if you can make it through the day without an outburst. You feel lost in the corporate maze. Abandoned by
your boss. Out of control of your career. Or maybe he's breathing down your neck so often you could scream.
Sound all too familiar? You're not alone: 43 percent of workers say they do not feel valued by their employers, according
to CareerBuilder.com. In today's five tips, learn how to manage your boss to make your career work for you.
1. Ask: what's the problem?
Get down to the nitty gritty. What exactly is it about your boss that drives you crazy? Is she a micromanager? According
to Katherine Spencer Lee, the executive director of staffing firm, Robert Half Technology, this type of boss is controlling,
overly involved, and needs to develop more confidence in you.
Your solution is to prove you're capable. Start asking for complete control over small tasks to prove you're able
and keep asking for more.
Maybe your boss is a non-manager? You know: the kind that's indecisive, hesitant, and vague. You need to guide this
type of boss. Instead of giving open-ended questions, offer answer choices. Be specific with your requests.
For example, "I'd like to meet with you at 9 am on Thursday to discuss the way we do Q-reports, I have some ideas
about how we can become more efficient." When he is vague, ask for clarification.
If your boss is an unreasonable manager that overloads you with work, ask him what his priorities are and for options
to deal with what you can't handle. Maybe even ask for a part-timer's help.
2. Have regular meetings.
Some of the major frustrations employees have with their bosses are due to a communication breakdown.
"Employees worry when bosses go behind closed doors, 'Are you talking about me?'" says Spencer Lee.
The paranoia won't be there if you feel part of the action. Spencer Lee advises you to set up regular meetings with
your boss -- beyond your semi-annual review or quarterly update. You want to tell your boss your career goals and what
you think you need to get there.
Also, ask them about their career goals, and what you can do to help them get there. Remember, your manager also
needs support from you to succeed.
You read it: support your manager. Be his buddy. It might be painful, but every boss wants his people to be on his
side, according to John Hoover, author of "How to Work for an Idiot." Hoover says the best way to accomplish that is
to learn "idiot speak," or basically speak your boss' language. If your boss loves hockey, talk about hockey, even integrate
hockey analogies into your proposals to the boss. It's one way to really get his attention.
3. Toot your own horn.
Everyone wants a boss that will promote him, improve him, and go to bat for him. But unfortunately not everyone is
so lucky. If your boss doesn't want to get to know you as an employee or a person, force them to see you.
John Challenger, of outplacement firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, says you have to make sure your boss knows your
accomplishments, the extra work you put in, and a bit about your personal life. It will help them see they need to reward
your hard work and give you the vacation time you requested to spend with your family.
If you're getting no love from your boss, toot your horn to others in the food chain, advises Hoover. You can't hold
expectations over your boss to accelerate your career: ultimately, it's your responsibility. "Any expectation is resentment
waiting to happen. And resentment you can't hide," he says.
4. Learn from it.
Do things feel unbearable? Stop and think for a moment if your attitude could also be feeding into that feeling.
Try to be more flexible; you may find others will try to be more flexible with you. While it might be hard to swallow
your pride, you need to at least try to make it work. Ask yourself and your boss what you could be doing differently.
"Every circumstance is probably not going to last forever and is a learning experience," says Spencer Lee, "With
every boss you have, learn something from them. What to do, what not to do." Chances are you're going to become a boss
one day, so keep in mind what you think makes a good one.
5. Know when to bail.
Sometimes, there is just no way to make it work. Maybe you and your boss have repelling personalities or work styles.
Maybe you're in a dead-end position.
"If you can look yourself in the mirror and say, 'In this environment, I am stagnant. There is no career development
here, I am not learning anything, I can see that opportunities for promotion are non-existent, and it's not completely
my issue.' Think: I should look elsewhere,'" Spencer Lee says.
If you're dealing with a larger issue than just career frustrations, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying,
or privacy invasion, you want to get your human resources friends involved.
For additional advice on these situations, check out www.badbossology.com,
which offers a how-to on dealing with all types of bad bosses.
Consensus doesn't exist, but several themes occurred most frequently in the comments the site received from readers.
Bad bosses, in order of their frequency in the comments thread, do the following.
Love brownnosers, tattletales, and relatives who report to them. They choose favorite employees and cover
up and make excuses for the poor work of their incompetent favorites. They ignore selected people and
discriminate against many employees.
&noblem, then pounce.
Speak one-sidedly to staff. Bad bosses don't provide the air time for staff to respond to accusations and comments.
They intimidate people and bully staff. They allow other employees to bully employees.
Take credit for the successes and positive accomplishments of employees. They are equally as quick to blame
employees when something goes wrong.
Fail to provide rewards or recognition for positive employee performance.
These six were the top "bad boss" characteristics cited by readers. The following came up less frequently but were
contributed by more than one reader. The bad boss:
Is not qualified for the boss job by either skills or experience.
Will not let go of problems or mistakes. The bad boss returns to discuss negative events continually and searches
for faults in employees.
Will not accept constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. The bad boss can't deal
with disagreement from employees who have their own opinions about work related issues.
Lacks integrity, breaks promises, and is dishonest.
Does not have the courage to deal with a difficult situation despite knowing that it is the right thing to do.
Causes dissention among staff members by his or her actions and comments.
Reader comments also made the point that a lot of bad boss behavior is enabled, or at least allowed, by the boss's
bad boss.
These comments provide a snapshot about what employees believe makes a bad boss. Listen and learn or listen and commisserate.
For the full flavor of the comments - I can't capture them in a summary - please
visit the original "comments" thread about
bad bosses.
Ready to Leave Your Really Bad Boss?
These resources will assist you to move on - or not.
If your supervisor reminds you of that pointy-haired character in the Dilbert comics, then you may have a problem. (Especially
if he has the same haircut.)
signs of a bad boss
Doesn't trust employees
Doesn't respect employees
Doesn't give/take feedback
Doesn't involve employees in tough processes
Is rude to employees
Intimidates employees
Doesn't believe in work/family balance
Gives too many tasks and impossible-to-meet deadlines
Find out which category your boss falls under, and learn how to deal with him.
The Un-manager
Some managers simply don't have a clue as to what they're doing. This kind of negligent boss may seem like a dream
at first, but lack of meat and substance will leave you empty-handed whenever you inquire about a task. A qualified
supervisor should be able to perform all office tasks in the occurrence of his subordinates' absence, but this clueless
manager can't even change the toner on the network printer.
He may have been working for years in the company, and suddenly got
promoted to a new position because the
company couldn't find anyone qualified enough from the outside, or simply because it wants to promote in-house employees.
Whatever.
Is your boss a dictator?
The Delegator
This manager might be the most efficient one on paper, but when it comes to
social skills, he straight-out fails.
He might be very good at delegating tasks
and piling up your desk, but come 4:59pm, he's the first one out the door.
He's very good at passing work along to his subordinates, letting them do the work unsupervised, and accepting the
accolades for it. And if the work doesn't make him look good, then he'll just have you do it over. It's that simple
for him.
Snatching glory from his workers is something he's very good at... and enjoys doing. No matter how much you're praised
for the job, he'll be one step ahead, claiming his merit for the work.
The Dictator
The opposite of the delegator, this manager likes to overlook everything; from the final numbers on the expense
report to how you sharpen your pencils. He understands the concept of delegation, but he's a firm believer of the
"if you want it done well, do it yourself" mentality.
Employees need to be given some creative leeway to think for themselves, but this won't happen here. He's probably
going to look over all your work with a fine-toothed comb and retouch it, wasting both your time in the process.
opposites don't attract
Of course, finding a perfect boss/employee match is quasi-impossible, unless both parties are willing to adapt to
the setting. You have to work on each other's flaws and strong points to complement your work methods.
consequences of a bad boss
Employee loyalty is important in any work setting, but this is likely to disappear with a bad boss. As a general
rule, employees don't necessarily want to be managed, but rather mentored . It's simply a matter of perception, but
important nonetheless.
Staff morale might suffer from the situation in which the employees may experience "sucky supervisor syndrome".
Bad management might result in an employee parting with the company, and more importantly, taking intellectual and training
investments with him. The collateral effect of this is a decrease in staff morale and productivity.
But what can you do to improve the situation and make things dandy? Set up regular progress reports. On a regular
basis (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly), sit down with your boss and bring him up-to-date on projects. The effect? Developing
the boss/employee relationship, which will ultimately make working together more favorable.
Focus on the problem, not the boss. Perhaps the boss isn't the problem; maybe you just can't get a good communication
flow going. Don't be shy to pull him aside when something doesn't go your way. Talk things over and don't take it personally.
Work with your boss, not against him. Doing joint work will promote chemistry between you and your manager. Be proactive
and let him take some credit for your good work, so long as he's aware of the source of it.
Go over his head. If you see that you're going nowhere fast, then consider talking to his supervisor. Being productive
is far more important than pleasing your boss, at the expense of the company.
Plan an out-of-office meeting. Do you keep trying to catch your boss for two minutes to pitch him a new idea, but
he doesn't have time? Invite him for a quick drink after work to discuss some things. This encounter will serve the
dual purpose of showing you take your job to heart and want to better your boss/employee relation.
Change departments, or quit. If all else fails, ask to be transferred to another department if you work in a big
enough firm -- or simply hand in your resignation letter. Only you know your own worth, and if you don't feel respected,
motivated and so on, then move on.
career tip of the week
Keep in mind that getting a job is not an easy thing to do, and keeping it also requires a great deal of work -- just
like any relationship. So if the only culprit at work is your boss, learn to play the cards you're dealt and make the
most of what you don't have.
See you up the corporate ladder.
Stop Toxic Managers Before They Stop You
by Gillian Flynn
You've been there. We've all been there. The manager who bullies, threatens, yells. The manager whose mood swings
determine the climate of the office on any given workday. Who forces employees to whisper in sympathy in cubicles and
hallways. The backbiting, belittling boss from hell. Call it what you want -- poor interpersonal skills, unfortunate
office practices -- but some people, by sheer, shameful force of their personalities, make working for them rotten.
We call them toxic managers. Their results may look fine on paper, but the fact is, all is not well if you have one
loose in your workforce: It's unhealthy, unproductive and will eventually undo HR's efforts to create a healthy, happy
and progressive workplace.
Why are some managers toxic -- and why should HR care?
The looming question surrounding toxic managers is: Why are there so many? In these days of enlightened management,
with so much emphasis on communication, interaction and valuing people, why does this breed still exist? In large part,
it's because our bottom lines allow it. Companies often don't have a means of rating managers outside of productivity.
If a supervisor is churning out the widgets, the questions are kept to a minimum.
"The biggest single reason is because it's tolerated," says Lynne McClure, a Mesa, Arizona-based expert on managing
high-risk behaviors and author of Risky Business (Haworth Press, 1996), a book on workplace-violence prevention.
She believes if a company has toxic managers, it's because the culture enables it -- knowingly or unknowingly through
plain old apathy (see sidebar, "Eight Toxic-Manager Behaviors -- and the Cultures That Nurture Them").
Certain work situations foster toxic managers. When a company has gone through downsizings, pay freezes or other
financial crises, negative management tends to thrive. The emphasis is often on get-tough turnaround, and as such higher-ups
often turn a blind eye to crude management as long as the numbers are good. Similarly, employees are less likely to
speak up about their rotten bosses -- they don't want to sound like whiners or risk their jobs.
Of course, some people are just going to be miserable to work for no matter what. Yet they end up as managers because
they're good employees whose companies lack another way of rewarding them. "There are some people who simply should
not be promoted to management," says Deb Haggerty, head of Orlando, Florida-based Positive Connections, a consulting
firm that teaches employees how to deal with personality differences. "Just because someone is a brilliant engineer
doesn't mean they'll be a brilliant manager. Yet that's too often how a company demonstrates status."
So a person is difficult to work for -- is that really an HR concern? Of course it is, and for several reasons. At
the very least, there's the morale issue. Bad managers tend to infect their departments with bad attitudes. It's like
a disease: They spread despair, anger and depression, which show up in lackluster work, absenteeism and turnover. Workplace
guru Tom Bay has written an entire book about how ideas and moods can aid or sabotage the workplace, Change Your
Attitude: Creating Success One Thought at a Time (Career Press, 1998). He believes it's toxic managers -- and the
cultures that enable them -- that are at the core of today's job-hopping phenomenon. "Turnover is the highest it's ever
been," he says. "Employees don't feel appreciated."
Obviously, turnover, absenteeism and uninspired work cost a company money, even if a department's output remains
level. But there are other dangers of toxic management. Intense bullying over a period of time can cause emotional damage
to employees. Says Haggerty: "In addition to being problems in themselves, toxic behaviors create a hostile work environment
and can easily escalate to real violence, harassment and intimidation -- all of which end up landing a company in court."
And you can imagine how sympathetic a jury would be toward a company that allowed its employees to be terrorized in
order to keep a tidy bottom line.
So how does HR address the situation? Help those that can be helped, and excise those who can't -- or won't. But
first comes what's often the tricky part: finding them.
Every company has them: Identify the bad apples
Toxic managers don't always stand atop your building, wearing a black hat and holding a placard telling you they're
the bad guys. HR has to do a little detective work, particularly when employees are often loath to complain about personality
differences, no matter how justified. Certainly, there are some warning signs. Check for instance, turnover in every
manager's department -- are employees transferring or quitting a particular area? If so, that's cause to ask further
questions.
"Being communicative and being observant is vital," says Bay, also a former HR director. "Don't wait for massive
turnover, that's like realizing you've had a heart attack after you've died." At the first increased trickle of turnover
or transfers, Bay says, start asking employees what's happening.
Have discussions both individually for those who need privacy to speak their minds and in groups to appeal to employees
who like peer support. Listen for key words or notions; don't expect employees to explicitly say they hate their boss.
Do ask follow-up questions. For instance, one common flag is for an employee to say their job is fine, but that they're
under a lot of strain or pressure. Ask them why -- it's often an interpersonal problem, and a good way for you to get
more information.
At Wescast Industries Inc. in Brantford, Ontario, Wayne Phibbs, vice president of HR, uses a monthly "report card"
meeting for employees, designed to measure their job satisfaction. "Picture a union person frustrated with his boss
-- he's not listening, he's not helping," says Phibbs. "Every month there's this opportunity to force your leader to
be honest. He can't go in there and buffalo people; it won't work." Phibbs thinks such open talks and constant forums
contribute to his workforce's high satisfaction level -- even among the Canadian Auto Workers Union, a group notorious
for its scrappy members.
Of course, not all employees are going to be publicly forthcoming. So keep the lines of communication open in as
many venues as possible. "Exit interviews are helpful, but they're too late," says McClure. "I wouldn't stop doing them,
but you need to do other things."
Anonymous hotlines are helpful, and can be set up as cheaply as dedicating one phone line with voice-mail or, more
elaborately, through an outside agency that refers issues to HR or an EAP, depending on which is appropriate. "HR has
to be careful not to get into counseling issues, and that's hard because we know how fuzzy that line is," admits McClure.
HR can also encourage employees to send email. Employees need not use their work account; many Internet sites offer
free email with anonymous user names (hotmail.com, for instance).
Using multisource performance reviews, in which employees can give feedback on their bosses anonymously, is also
enormously helpful. At Spring Engineering Corp. in Livonia, Michigan, Tim Tindall, president in charge of HR issues,
instituted a 360-degree survey based around "servant leadership," the theory that the best managers are those who serve
their employees. In that mode, the questionnaire covered qualities like listening, empathy, awareness and healing. "The
culture in this area is somewhat adversarial between labor and management. It's a long tradition and one that's hard
to break, so this helped us get at some issues." Tindall included himself in the reviews, which were discussed openly,
and used to plot next steps.
One word of warning about multisource reviews: These don't need to wait for a manager's yearly review, but they do
need to be given to all managers in a department. It's key, says Haggerty, not to target one particular supervisor,
even if turnover and comments have identified that person as problematic.
Finally, talk to your supervisors, says Bay. When you ask a manager how things are going in his or her department
and you hear a lot of "I" rather than "we" or a lot of blame being dispensed, that can be a flag. So can constant griping
about employees in general. Finally, keep your ear to the ground, even if a manager doesn't strike you as toxic. Says
Sharon Keys Seal, a Baltimore job coach: "They're not going to treat you the way they treat their workers."
Put your managers into detox
So now you know who -- and what -- you're dealing with. What do you do next? First comes the confrontation: Sit down
with this person, and tell him or her about the problem. Be as specific as you can. Don't couch it in vague terms, like
saying the manager has "interpersonal issues." If the manager is perceived as a bully, say that. If she tends to explode
at employees, tell her that. Then explain that it must be stopped and why. Don't come down too hard: This may be the
person's first whiff of a problem. However, do be firm, and tell the manager that future performance will be noted.
Also set a time period for improvement. "Addressing this during a goal-setting session might be good," advises Haggerty.
"It really has to be done in a positive fashion, because those kinds of individuals tend to take criticism and harbor
it and nurture it."
After the intervention comes training. In many cases, the manager simply doesn't have the correct tools, particularly
if the person's background is field-specific rather than managerial. "You have to give them alternatives for their behavior,"
says McClure. "Say not only ‘You can't do this,' but ‘You have to do this.'" If that means they need to go to seminars
on employee relations, that's what they need to do. If the person is a poor manager simply because he's in over his
head, give him some educational opportunities. Collaborate with the supervisor -- ask her what she thinks the problem
is and what might help. There are seminars and classes for everything from anger management to accounting. Also offer
EAP counseling -- sometimes a person's main issues are emotional, alcohol or drug related, and a good therapist can
help.
If, after the intervention and follow-up period, the behavior hasn't changed, HR must decide what to do. If the person
has skills useful to the company and is a good worker, you may consider transferring him out of a managerial position
but keeping him at the company. Some people just don't work well with others, but may blossom when working in a more
narrow sphere of interaction.
If that's not the case -- if you actually need to terminate the manafor personality issues. You need to define those
issues as work-related performance problems, says Harold M. Brody, chair of the Los Angeles labor and employment practice
of Proskauer Rose LLP. That means you don't just say a person is a bully, but that the person's bullying management
techniques thwart productivity in the department. Once it's defined in this manner, you can discharge the person the
way you would for any other performance problem. Keep a record of the incidents, document that you've given the employee
time for change and make the termination. This is actually one case in which, if it should reach a jury, the employer
has an advantage. "You get this rare opportunity, if you have the right record, to show you had the guts to go to a
manager who's producing the widgets but driving everyone crazy, and saying, ‘You can't do that, and if you do, you're
going to lose your job,'" says Brody.
Prevent future problems
Once you've addressed your current toxic managers, you have to make sure more don't sprout up. To begin with, make
sure job descriptions include treating employees in a dignified and appropriate manner. Include behaviors that won't
be tolerated and hold them accountable for turnover. This not only makes the company's stance very clear, it also emphasizes
the importance of treating people well. "Behavior has to become part of the job description," says McClure. "That way
you can no longer say that manager X is a great manager because they really produce, but they're terrible with how they
treat their people. That way, manager X can no longer by definition be called a great manager."
Once the job description includes behavior, HR can effectively reward or discipline managers through performance
reviews. "Tell them they're going to be evaluated, compensated and possibly disciplined based on their ability to effectively
meet HR objectives -- relating to employees and managing them in positive ways," says Brody. Although Phibbs of Wescast
says he uses performance ratings more as a discussion tool than as a punitive pay measurement, if a manager gets poor
reviews and doesn't improve, he'd take the next step. "If someone kept messing up, we wouldn't give them an increase."
Adds McClure: "Make it a pocketbook issue; that gets their attention."
Finally, make sure management isn't the only way to advance in your company. Build in pay increases or title changes
to reward good work without forcing people to assume positions they're not suited for and won't enjoy.
You've been there. We've all been there. But if you're in HR, you have the power to help toxic managers, their employees
-- and ultimately, your company.
Opinion: It takes a lot of decent managers to create a good organization. But it only takes one talented, toxic manager
to ruin an organization.
With the job market a little healthier in most regions than it has been in four years, it's time to gird your loins
and participate in a dangerous but useful workplace sport: purging the toxic waste among you.
While only a small minority of all the managers in large American organizations, the presence of Toxies (toxic people)
in leadership positions is far more common than it should be, and dealing with the situation can be a bloodbath.
The word toxic has taken on a lot of meanings, and more widespread use of it has made its definition fuzzy—a dangerous
precursor to not being able to quickly identify and deal with it.
There are a lot of tools management consultants use to recognize it, but I have a new favorite, which is in a book
that came out last year that was
reviewed by Paul Brown.
Most people know that a toxic manager is one who manipulates others for his own aggrandizement.
What most seem not to know, though, is that the behaviors and actions of the toxic manager actually degrade the quality
of work, morale and even the stability of an organization.
It's not just unpleasant, it undermines workplace productivity and inevitably the bottom line, too.
Jean Lipman-Blumen's "The Allure of Toxic Leaders" — except for the usual business-book
publisher-enforced padding and C-level name dropping—is remarkably insightful on the species.
Much of what gives the volume value is that it's as much about recognizing the motivations of the people who follow
or tolerate toxic behaviors as it is about the toxic wasters themselves.
Original Insights
That's a useful balance, because to actually do anything about a toxic manager, people have to recognize why they
allow themselves to be paralyzed or even hornswoggled by charming incompetents who gut an organization's prospects for
their own gratification. That's the first step; they still have to follow up with forceful action.
Forceful action against toxic people, especially those in leadership positions, is almost as risky to the actor as
not doing anything, which is why I mentioned the job market.
While healthy organizations have ways of dealing with and controlling toxic people, unhealthy organizations (the
vast majority) don't.
Absent those controls, toxic people are more likely to ascend into leadership positions or be allowed to build political
bulwarks to protect themselves from those who would protect the organization.
That makes it somewhat more likely the Toxies will triumph and those who would put them in their place will need
to find alternative employment.
That doesn't mean, of course, one shouldn't plan and execute the operation.
To the contrary, if you do decent work, no unhealthy organization deserves you and any organization willing to let
the toxics win isn't one you need to be in.
In a "getting-by" job market, you have alternatives that are better than either refusing to take on the Toxies while
suffering their consequences for them or putting up resistance and losing.
A getting-by job market makes the benefit/cost ratio much higher for acting than it does for cowering. A decent one
makes it a slam-dunk.
Recognizing the Toxic Ones
Because the vernacular has absorbed the adjective "toxic" and smudged up the definition, just recognizing who is
and who isn't toxic has become difficult for most people.
One of the valuable tools in the Lipman-Blumen book is a clear list of the destructive behaviors of toxic leaders
and wannabes. Here are my top 10, culled from her longer list:
Degrading: They ignore incompetence or promote incompetent people, undermining those who provide their paycheck,
in order to buffer their own position.
Replicating toxicity: They build dynastic cadres of equally toxic adherents, promote them within the Toxie's own
department or help them get promoted in other departments.
Immobilizing: They immobilize the careers of anyone who might help the organization because they view others' success
as potentially competitive.
Illusion-casting: They consciously feed their followers' illusions that enhance the toxic leader's own power and
impair the autonomy of their staff.
Wasting: They erode the quality of life and career prospects of others, by intimidating, seducing, demeaning, disenfranchising
and especially undermining their work product or careers.
Violating: They violate the basic human rights of people who allow them to do it, even if those people are their
own followers.
Stifling: They build a set of reinforcements that make questioning or even suggesting improvements in the toxic leader's
ideas a career-threatening move.
Subverting accountability: They use the rules to constrain others' operational flexibility and work when it's convenient
to reinforce their will but subvert the process whenever it's not.
Scapegoating: They invent scapegoats, torment them and seduce others into following their lead. Since they need scapegoats,
they rarely act to fix a problem before it becomes one. To make this more effective, they are also constantly showing
favoritism and shower certain people with temporary praise to give staff the illusion that there are safe spots close
to the Toxie.
Booby-trapping: They design defensive arrangements structured so the costs of moving them aside will trigger the
downfall of the organization. (Remember the Dynegy guy who told employees if they didn't lie for him, he'd make sure
they went down first?)
What's interesting to me about Lipman-Blumen's list is if you ask these questions to judge whether someone is toxic
or not, it's been my experience in consulting and on staff that there are almost no grey cases.
You'll honestly find individuals either fit zero to two of these destructive behaviors, or virtually all of them.
I've never worked with or for someone who displayed half or two-thirds of them.
You can use the insightful "Allure of Toxic Leaders" model to identify not only toxic leaders but, more importantly,
people who hold the potential for toxicity, before they get into a position where they wield significant power.
Preventing those people from advancing is the single highest reward/risk move you can make in controlling the organizational
damage Toxies can spray around.
Lipman-Blumen has tools for responding to the toxic manager, and in the next column, I'll describe them so you will
be armed for some of the most necessary and important fights of your career.
It's never too soon to start planning the removal of human toxic waste.
Jeff Angus is a management consultant and has been working with IT
since 1974. He has held IT management positions in user interface design, marketing, operations and testing/analysis.
Look for his book, "Management by Baseball: A Pocket Reader." Jeff's columns have appeared in The New York Times, The
Washington Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Baltimore Sun.
[May 12, 2005] Remediating Toxic Managers II: Better Solutions By
Jeff Angus
In a previous column, I discussed how to identify toxic managers using tools from Jean Lipman-Blumen's insightful
book, "The Allure of Toxic
Leaders."
If you still can't recognize a Toxie, I strongly recommend seeing the film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,"
a documentary about a company that, while it wasn't even close to the most toxic work environment of the last decade,
has gotten the widest publicity.
Having recognized a Toxie—typically a manager who manipulates others to their detriment
for his own aggrandizement—what should you do about it?
Lipman-Blumen lays out a set of choices including some perfectly reasonable ones I understand but don't recommend.
In the face of toxic leadership that has some control over your work or personal life, you have to take action—doing
nothing is, in itself, a choice, and the worst possible one.
Here are her five options:
Counsel the toxic leader to help him improve.
Quietly work to undermine the Toxie.
Join with others to confront the leader.
Join with others to overthrow the leader.
Leave the organization.
Things you can do alone
You can counsel the leader—mentor him or her. Lipman-Blumen includes an example from her experience where
a not-for-profit organization with highly dedicated staff had an executive director who appeared great during the interview
process but turned out to have poor people skills and a habit of disparaging the past good works of the agency.
One of the key contributors finally made it her mission to save the agency and the leader's tenure by meeting with
the executive director to bring up the issues. Through persistent contact and buffering between the executive director
and the staff, she was able to make the arrangement functional.
The author has met and researched more Toxies than I have, but I've never met one who could be reformed. If you're
going to try this method, be extra careful; don't even consider it unless the Toxie is a truly irreplaceable talent
(think Barry Bonds, not someone who is a legend in his own mind).
Another approach, to quietly subvert the Toxie, is an innately toxic move itself, although intended for a
greater good. As the author asks: "When, if ever, is toxicity deserving of counter-toxicity?" She does not provide a
satisfying answer.
The structural problem inherent in undermining a Toxie relates to Angus' Eighth Law:
All
human organizations tend to be self-amplifying.
While unhealthy organizations already tend to reward toxic behaviors and promote Toxies, the benefit of trying
to leverage that to make the organization "better" is short-term at best. Peers see that toxicity works and the message
gets reinforced. Best to leave this approach alone unless you are quite disempowered and have no alternatives.
You can leave—get out of dodge, do what people in teen horror movies foolishly never try
to do until it's too late.This is a real option and, I suggest, a decent one, even
if you have to take a pay cut to get out. Organizations that tolerate or reward toxic behaviors are heading
for an inevitable fall. The way they fall is variable but usually don't involve golden parachutes for many; they usually
implode very quickly, with a lot of bloodshed, à la Enron. Sudden implosions leave little wiggle room for the individual
who chooses to leave only when forced to and not before.
And as I stated in my previous column, if you do decent work, no unhealthy organization deserves you and any organization
willing to let the toxics win isn't one you need to be in.
Lipman-Blumen argues well and has persuaded me that Toxies just get stronger with every unsuccessful attempt to correct
them or push them aside, adding defensive techniques to their repertoires. Plus, they already excel at isolating out
an individual for torment or targeting.
She suggests joining with others to confront the leader. Just as a baseball team in a slump
won't fire all the players, the bigger your coalition, the harder it is to erase at one stroke. The Toxie's
counter-approach is to try to fracture the coalition by firing some individuals or buying off a few. A confrontation,
too, leaves the leader—reformed behavior or not—in place. That, in my opinion, is a poor idea.
When you have no alternative, this is a workable approach as long as you invest heavily in building and maintaining
the coalition — it needs to be nurtured every hour because the Toxie is going to try to smash it and its members.
Lipman-Blumen's final approach is the one I generally favor: Join with others to overthrow the leader by meeting
with him or her overtly. Again, the author believes that this only happens with a coalition with multiple constituencies
(perhaps outsiders like customers or board members). And, I re-assert, you need to invest heavily in building and maintaining
the coalition to survive the counter-assault.
Let me add an important lagniappe to the author's advice: Don't hire Toxies, and if you have them, don't promote
them.
Most organizations are not healthy enough to have natural immunity to Toxies. I urge you to stop them in the two
spots where it's easiest and least expensive in resources and casualties.
Don't hire them in the first place. Create whatever mechanisms you need to prevent them from getting in the
door. One of my client companies was a very clever West Coast distributor of components. They were smart about people,
but they liked to hire the "best" salespeople—those who were the best closers.
They knew they were taking some risk by hiring people who cared more about winning now than long-term relationships,
but they had sophisticated technology to track accounts and felt they could control the reaction. They were wrong. One
saleswoman stole some accounts and set up her own business (which failed), and a regional sales manager figured out
how to spoof the tracking system to reward himself and select reps he had hired who kicked back some pelf to him.
I'll say it again: Unless you have no choice, don't hire someone you believe doesn't understand a shared fate—that
in the long-term not only does he need to win, but the organization does too, equally.
Repair the flawed process that allows Toxies to advance
Don't promote them. You probably already have Toxies in the ranks of employees or even managers. Unless you
are at death's door and have no other alternatives, do not promote them. If you can't move them out, you will have to
invest resources constantly in keeping them from advancing to a wider span of control. Don't forget, they are very seductive
as well as ruthless—the Ted Bundys of organizational development.
Whatever you do, though, don't wait for everything to turn ugly before you act.
You've been there. We've all been there. The manager who bullies, threatens, yells. The manager whose mood swings
determine the climate of the office on any given workday. Who forces employees to whisper in sympathy in cubicles and
hallways. The backbiting, belittling boss from hell. Call it what you want -- poor interpersonal skills, unfortunate
office practices -- but some people, by sheer, shameful force of their personalities, make working for them rotten.
We call them toxic managers. Their results may look fine on paper, but the fact is, all is not well if you have one
loose in your workforce: It's unhealthy, unproductive and will eventually undo HR's efforts to create a healthy, happy
and progressive workplace.
Why are some managers toxic -- and why should HR care?
The looming question surrounding toxic managers is: Why are there so many? In these days of enlightened management,
with so much emphasis on communication, interaction and valuing people, why does this breed still exist? In large part,
it's because our bottom lines allow it. Companies often don't have a means of rating managers outside of productivity.
If a supervisor is churning out the widgets, the questions are kept to a minimum.
"The biggest single reason is because it's tolerated," says Lynne McClure, a Mesa, Arizona-based expert on managing
high-risk behaviors and author of Risky Business (Haworth Press, 1996), a book on workplace-violence prevention.
She believes if a company has toxic managers, it's because the culture enables it -- knowingly or unknowingly through
plain old apathy (see sidebar, "Eight Toxic-Manager Behaviors -- and the Cultures That Nurture Them").
Certain work situations foster toxic managers. When a company has gone through downsizings, pay freezes or other
financial crises, negative management tends to thrive. The emphasis is often on get-tough turnaround, and as such higher-ups
often turn a blind eye to crude management as long as the numbers are good. Similarly, employees are less likely to
speak up about their rotten bosses -- they don't want to sound like whiners or risk their jobs.
Of course, some people are just going to be miserable to work for no matter what. Yet they end up as managers because
they're good employees whose companies lack another way of rewarding them. "There are some people who simply should
not be promoted to management," says Deb Haggerty, head of Orlando, Florida-based Positive Connections, a consulting
firm that teaches employees how to deal with personality differences. "Just because someone is a brilliant engineer
doesn't mean they'll be a brilliant manager. Yet that's too often how a company demonstrates status."
So a person is difficult to work for -- is that really an HR concern? Of course it is, and for several reasons. At
the very least, there's the morale issue. Bad managers tend to infect their departments with bad attitudes. It's like
a disease: They spread despair, anger and depression, which show up in lackluster work, absenteeism and turnover. Workplace
guru Tom Bay has written an entire book about how ideas and moods can aid or sabotage the workplace, Change Your
Attitude: Creating Success One Thought at a Time (Career Press, 1998). He believes it's toxic managers -- and the
cultures that enable them -- that are at the core of today's job-hopping phenomenon. "Turnover is the highest it's ever
been," he says. "Employees don't feel appreciated."
Obviously, turnover, absenteeism and uninspired work cost a company money, even if a department's output remains
level. But there are other dangers of toxic management. Intense bullying over a period of time can cause emotional damage
to employees. Says Haggerty: "In addition to being problems in themselves, toxic behaviors create a hostile work environment
and can easily escalate to real violence, harassment and intimidation -- all of which end up landing a company in court."
And you can imagine how sympathetic a jury would be toward a company that allowed its employees to be terrorized in
order to keep a tidy bottom line.
So how does HR address the situation? Help those that can be helped, and excise those who can't -- or won't. But
first comes what's often the tricky part: finding them.
Every company has them: Identify the bad apples
Toxic managers don't always stand atop your building, wearing a black hat and holding a placard telling you they're
the bad guys. HR has to do a little detective work, particularly when employees are often loath to complain about personality
differences, no matter how justified. Certainly, there are some warning signs. Check for instance, turnover in every
manager's department -- are employees transferring or quitting a particular area? If so, that's cause to ask further
questions.
"Being communicative and being observant is vital," says Bay, also a former HR director. "Don't wait for massive
turnover, that's like realizing you've had a heart attack after you've died." At the first increased trickle of turnover
or transfers, Bay says, start asking employees what's happening.
Have discussions both individually for those who need privacy to speak their minds and in groups to appeal to employees
who like peer support. Listen for key words or notions; don't expect employees to explicitly say they hate their boss.
Do ask follow-up questions. For instance, one common flag is for an employee to say their job is fine, but that they're
under a lot of strain or pressure. Ask them why -- it's often an interpersonal problem, and a good way for you to get
more information.
At Wescast Industries Inc. in Brantford, Ontario, Wayne Phibbs, vice president of HR, uses a monthly "report card"
meeting for employees, designed to measure their job satisfaction. "Picture a union person frustrated with his boss
-- he's not listening, he's not helping," says Phibbs. "Every month there's this opportunity to force your leader to
be honest. He can't go in there and buffalo people; it won't work." Phibbs thinks such open talks and constant forums
contribute to his workforce's high satisfaction level -- even among the Canadian Auto Workers Union, a group notorious
for its scrappy members.
Of course, not all employees are going to be publicly forthcoming. So keep the lines of communication open in as
many venues as possible. "Exit interviews are helpful, but they're too late," says McClure. "I wouldn't stop doing them,
but you need to do other things."
Anonymous hotlines are helpful, and can be set up as cheaply as dedicating one phone line with voice-mail or, more
elaborately, through an outside agency that refers issues to HR or an EAP, depending on which is appropriate. "HR has
to be careful not to get into counseling issues, and that's hard because we know how fuzzy that line is," admits McClure.
HR can also encourage employees to send email. Employees need not use their work account; many Internet sites offer
free email with anonymous user names (hotmail.com, for instance).
Using multisource performance reviews, in which employees can give feedback on their bosses anonymously, is also
enormously helpful. At Spring Engineering Corp. in Livonia, Michigan, Tim Tindall, president in charge of HR issues,
instituted a 360-degree survey based around "servant leadership," the theory that the best managers are those who serve
their employees. In that mode, the questionnaire covered qualities like listening, empathy, awareness and healing. "The
culture in this area is somewhat adversarial between labor and management. It's a long tradition and one that's hard
to break, so this helped us get at some issues." Tindall included himself in the reviews, which were discussed openly,
and used to plot next steps.
One word of warning about multisource reviews: These don't need to wait for a manager's yearly review, but they do
need to be given to all managers in a department. It's key, says Haggerty, not to target one particular supervisor,
even if turnover and comments have identified that person as problematic.
Finally, talk to your supervisors, says Bay. When you ask a manager how things are going in his or her department
and you hear a lot of "I" rather than "we" or a lot of blame being dissolating out an individual for torment or targeting.
She suggests joining with others to confront the leader. Just as a baseball team in a slump won't fire all
the players, the bigger your coalition, the harder it is to erase at one stroke. The Toxie's counter-approach is to
try to fracture the coalition by firing some individuals or buying off a few. A confrontation, too, leaves the leader—reformed
behavior or not—in place. That, in my opinion, is a poor idea.
Let me add an important lagniappe to the author's advice: Don't hire Toxies, and if you have them, don't promote
them.
Most organizations are not healthy enough to have natural immunity to Toxies. I urge you to stop them in the two
spots where it's easiest and least expensive in resources and casualties.
Don't hire them in the first place. Create whatever mechanisms you need to prevent them from getting in the
door. One of my client companies was a very clever West Coast distributor of components. They were smart about people,
but they liked to hire the "best" salespeople—those who were the best closers.
They knew they were taking some risk by hiring people who cared more about winning now than long-term relationships,
but they had sophisticated technology to track accounts and felt they could control the reaction. They were wrong. One
saleswoman stole some accounts and set up her own business (which failed), and a regional sales manager figured out
how to spoof the tracking system to reward himself and select reps he had hired who kicked back some pelf to him.
I'll say it again: Unless you have no choice, don't hire someone you believe doesn't understand a shared fate—that
in the long-term not only does he need to win, but the organization does too, equally.
Repair the flawed process that allows Toxies to advance
Don't promote them. You probably already have Toxies in the ranks of employees or even managers. Unless you
are at death's door and have no other alternatives, do not promote them. If you can't move them out, you will have to
invest resources constantly in keeping them from advancing to a wider span of control. Don't forget, they are very seductive
as well as ruthless—the Ted Bundys of organizational development.
Whatever you do, though, don't wait for everything to turn ugly before you act.
We can think of organizations as falling on a continuum. One end is anchored by organizations that function well.
In the middle quivalent to what one finds in dysfunctional families. As a result, toxic organizations can cause long
term damage to employees and managers. In some cases this damage can last for years after people leave the toxic organization.
What Does A Toxic Organization Look Like?
Toxic organizations feel and function differently than healthier ones. On a gut level, employees and managers may
consistently feel that they are:
helpless in making things better
not supported emotionally or professionally
unable to identify the causes of the discomfort and pain
unable to leave the situation permanently and unable to solve problems permanently
consistently under attack
In terms of function and results, toxic organizations also look different. They may have some or all of the following
characteristics:
inability to achieve operational goals and commitments
problem-solving processes that are driven by fear and rarely yield good decisions
poor internal communication
huge amounts of waste that result from poor decisions, and lots or rework
interpersonal relationships are driven by manipulative and self-centered agendas.
In short, a toxic organization creates a high degree of distress, and eliminates any possibility that the organization
can accomplish much.
Conditions For Toxicity
Toxic organizations develop when certain conditions occur. First, the toxic organization is most often a relatively
small work unit where there is considerable face-to-face interaction amount the work unit members. This is because it
is the inter- personal relationships that are at the core of the sick organization. If there is a low level of interaction,
it is unlikely that a toxic organization will emerge.
In addition, the toxic organization requires most of the following:
high interdependence of members
high number of people who have personal agendas that do not coincide with the needs of the organization
poor communication
high identification with the organization as a source of identity
high degree of external pressure that threatens the jobs of members (*not always present)
Finally, the most important contributor to the toxic organization is the manager or director of the organization. Toxic
organizations cannot develop when there is a strong, mentally healthy leader.
The "Toxic Leader"
For every toxic organization, there is a toxic leader, a leader who, by virtue of his or her own problems, creates
an environment that drives people crazy. Toxic leaders are much like poor parents, in that they exhibit certain behavior
patterns that confuse and paralyze others who depend on them.
Emotionally, toxic managers tend to be very cold and distant, or overly reactive and emotional. In both cases they
behave this way because they lack the emotional maturity to deal with others in a constructive, supportive way. Often
you will find that a toxic manager may swing from one emotional extreme to another, in unpredictable ways.
The toxic manager is also inconsistent. He or she says one thing and behaves differently. Behavior and words don't
match. Decisions and direction can change suddenly and without apparent rationale. At the core of the toxic manager
is the sending of mixed messages so that employees never know what is expected, or what will be punished.
The toxic manager is, usually an avoider. He or she avoids situations that may be emotionally charged, such as conflict,
or discipline, and reacts poorly to being challenged. Or, the toxic manager avoids decision making until crises develop.
In short, the toxic manager confuses subordinates, uses very subtle ways of punishment for real or imagined transgressions,
creates a high degree of dependence, and is internally conflicted.
The Underlying Problem
Having made some comments about the role of the leader in a toxic organization, we also need to understand that the
leader is also helpless. Captive to his or her own emotional problems, there is an inability to recognize the problem,
or in fact, to understand what is happening. Most often, the toxic manager does not realize how bad things are, and
is also confused and extremely distressed. In a sense the toxic manager is also a victim.
This unawareness is the major block towards turning a toxic organization around. In fact, a toxic leader may read
this article and see no relevance to his or her situation. Because of this, in extreme situations, there is no hope
of turning a toxic organization around while the toxic leader remains. However, it is still possible, in less extreme
cases, for toxic leaders to break the toxic cycle provided they are willing to look at their own health and behavior
very carefully.
Conclusion
We have discussed the toxic organization, and the role of the toxic leader. If you are a manager we suggest that
if you find that there are some indications that your organization may be becoming toxic, we urge you to look at yourself
in an honest way. Remember that toxic organizations destroy people, and that if you are developing a tendency towards
toxic leadership, that you will pay a huge price in terms of personal health, and your career.
That's the thesis of a new book,
The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (a Little) Craziness and (a Lot of) Success in America, by John D. Gartner,
a psychotherapist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School. America
may be the dominant force in the global economy because we're a nation made of somewhat Crazy Eddies—gonzo businessmen
and -women who may be genetically predisposed to take big-time risks.
Related in Slate
Hypomania may be related to another, less helpful, form of financial risktaking—stock speculation by novice dummies.
"The Book Club" examined this particularly American delusion in its discussion of
American Sucker. Tim Carvell
pointed out that you don't necessarily need to be a success to succeed.
Also, while geniuses may have made America great, they also need grant money; David Plotz examined the qualifications
for a MacArthur genius grant.
It sounds right. Creativity and genius have often been linked to mental illness. Many virtuoso painters, composers,
and architects are a little kooky. Why not entrepreneurs? Gartner identifies "hypomania" as a benign form of madness—manic
without the depressive. Here's how they present: "Hypomanics are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence,
and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions
'just doesn't get it.' " They find it hard to sit still, channel their energy "into the achievement of wildly grand
ambitions," feel a sense of destiny, "can be euphoric," have a tendency to overspend, take risks, and act impulsively,
and with poor judgment.
They are "witty and gregarious" and possess a confidence that makes them charismatic and persuasive. It sounds a
lot like Jim Clark, the founder of Netscape and animating character of Michael Lewis'
The New New Thing.Or like President Bush.
Gartner concludes that many of the components of the archetypal American character—optimism, entrepreneurial energy,
religious zeal—fit the hypomanic profile. Perhaps, he posits, this nation of immigrants has a gene pool of hypomanics.
Immigration may select for it. After all, who else would be eager to embark on a dangerous journey, convinced he could
make it in the New World? As a result, Gartner writes, Americans may be "culturally and genetically predisposed to economic
risk."
Gartner sets out to prove his case not through contemporary case studies or the aggregation of vast quantities of
data, but through brief, lively studies of key hypomanics from five different centuries. Christopher Columbus, the "messianic
entrepreneur," had divine ambitions. Some of the first settlers of the United States were "protestant prophets"—John
Winthrop of Massachusetts and Roger Williams in Rhode Island. Alexander Hamilton fearlessly charged British positions
at Yorktown and wrote The Federalist papers in a series of all-nighters. His hypomania "was an essential ingredient
in his accomplishments. And his accomplishments were an essential ingredient in the creation of America." Andrew Carnegie,
the hypomanic steel baron, feverishly built up an industrial empire and then spent the rest of his life trying to change
the world. More recent hypomanics might include movie-studio moguls David Selznick and Louis B. Mayer, and geneticist
Craig Venter, who founded Celera and set off a race to decode the human genome.
It's a fun read. But Gartner's diagnosis overlooks the more rational factors that were crucial to the settling of
America and the construction of our unique economic and business culture. The British Protestants who crossed the Atlantic
Ocean in the 17th century came for God, but they also came for the cod. And the timber and the tobacco. By
the time John Winthrop arrived in Massachusetts, non-dissenting settlers—economic opportunists, not prophets—had been
farming and trading in Jamestown, Va., for more than 20 years.
Immigrants like Hamilton, Carnegie, and David Selznick's parents may have been hypomanic. But whether you were a
landless peasant in Ireland in the 1840s, a Jewish cobbler in Russia in 1910, or an Indian computer programmer in the
1980s, the decision to move to America made profound economic sense. America had cheap land in abundance. The opportunities—if
occasionally overblown—were real. So was the infrastructure that provided for the rule of law, capital markets, and
the protections of minority rights.
In fact, practicality and realism have coexisted with messianism and utopianism in the American experiment from the
very beginning. Benjamin Franklin was almost certainly hypomanic by Gartner's reckoning, but he was also one of the
most relentlessly practical Americans of the 18th century. The U.S. economy has been distinguished by hypomanic
booms and busts and by the creative destruction that lies at the heart of entrepreneurial capitalism. But it's also
distinguished by durable systems and institutions that are emblematic of our distinct style of managerial capitalism—the
Federal Reserve and the New York Stock Exchange, our telecommunications networks, and Procter & Gamble. Such institutions
are not the work of flamboyant geniuses but of tons of thoughtful, far-sighted, and average Americans.
To put it another way, hypomanics instigate, but they rarely build institutions that outlive them. The necessary
counterpart to the hypomanic Henry Ford was Alfred P. Sloan, who built General Motors. Andrew Carnegie could never have
monetized his fortune were it not for the constantly rationalizing financier J.P. Morgan. In every generation, cooler-headed
executives and entrepreneurs enter a field after a burst of creativity and build businesses and fortunes by imposing
the discipline and order the creators may have lacked. Steve Jobs of Apple (who certainly has hypomanic tendencies)
is an innovator who has become a billionaire, made long-term investors wealthy, and helped spread the personal computer
revolution. But the same can also be said of the preternaturally well-adjusted Michael Dell.
Executives who chew the scenery may suck up attention, revolutionize industries, and symbolize American capitalism.
But they're not particularly good for companies' long-term health, as Harvard Business School professor Rakesh Kurana's
argues in his book Searching for a Corporate
Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs. No country produces as many turnaround artists, bankruptcy
specialists, and temporary CEOs as America does.
The late 1990s Internet boom was the golden age of hypomanic CEOs. But how many of their companies still survive?
Perhaps the most prominent and successful Internet executive is eBay's distinctly unhypomanic Meg Whitman. So, yes,
Gartner is right that hypomanic first movers matter a lot, and that we need a few more. But we shouldn't forget the
huge contributions of the more sober-minded folks who follow behind and pick up the pieces.
Gaslighting is a form of
psychological abuse
in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own
memory,
perception and
sanity.[1]
Instances may range simply from the denial
by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser
with the intention of
disorienting
the victim.
Psychologist Martha Stout states that sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently
transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but are also typically charming and convincing
liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their
perceptions.[6] Jacobson and Gottman report that some physically abusive spouses may gaslight their partners,
even flatly denying that they have been violent.[3]
Psychological manipulation is a type of
social influence that aims to change
the perception or behavior of others through
underhanded, deceptive, or
even abusive tactics.[1]
By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other's expense, such methods could be considered
exploitative, abusive,
devious, and deceptive. Social influence
is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to
persuade patients to change
unhealthy habits. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced
to accept or reject and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute
underhanded manipulation.
The fog of war is a term used to describe the level of ambiguity in situational awareness experienced by participants
in military operations.[1] The term seeks to capture the uncertainty regarding
own capability, adversary capability, and adversary intent during an engagement, operation, or campaign. The term is
ascribed to the Prussian military analyst
Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote:
"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent,
be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently—like the effect of a fog or moonshine—gives to things
exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."[2]
The term may also be a reference to the use of black powder
in warfare, which often produced clouds of thick "fog", obscuring the battlefield from observers.
Choosing the best presidential candidate among the 2008 contenders is a tough job. Picking the worst is easy. Rudy
Giuliani is the guy you'd get if you put George Bush and Dick Cheney into a wine press and squeezed out their pure combined
essence:
unbounded arrogance and self-righteousness,
a chip on his shoulder the size of a redwood,
a studied contempt for anybody's opinion but his own,
a vindictive streak a mile wide,
and a devotion to secrecy and executive power unmatched in presidential history.
Ineffective, ill-tempered managers hurt employee morale and productivity. Learn what behaviors characterize toxic
managers, how they damage an organization, and how to lessen their impact.
You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting hosting of this site with different providers to distribute and speed up access.
Currently there are two functional mirrors: softpanorama.info (the fastest) and softpanorama.net.
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor
do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the
author may be associated with.We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
.jpg/275px-Gaslight_1944_trailer(3).jpg)
)
).jpg)
