[work-in-progress]

Awhile back, I listened to an interview of an expert on the topic of psychopathy, who went into some detail on new findings from neuroscience that can identify the physical reasons for this behaviour, and that although those whom would be regarded as psychopaths likely make up about 1% of the general population, their antisocial nature makes them more prone to end up incarcerated...where they likely make up about 20% of prison populations.

What wasn't really addressed was what about the smarter, higher functioning psychopaths who are able to live within societal norms? Not much was said about the likelihood that psychopaths may have perfect tools to rise to the top of the political or business world....except for the obvious - Bernie Madoff; but what about the others who might explain why things are so bad today. Why are some people with billions of dollars getting even more ruthless to gain even more riches? Why are the corporate masters of the universe so nonchalant and careless about the environmental destruction their industries and business practices have created? Doesn't seem like the:"they have children too" argument is working! If these people are psychopaths, and if the artificial persons they've created behave like psychopaths, that would provide a lot of the reasons why they are willing to take us over the cliff today. How many corporate persons would fail the new DSM IV diagnostic criteria:
Callous disregard for the feelings of others. Check.

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships. Check.

Reckless disregard for the safety of others. Check.

Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conniving others for profit. Check.

Incapacity to experience guilt. Check.

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Check.

A handy half hr. video I came across - a chapter one excerpt from The Art Of Urban Survival, includes a few tips on how to protect yourself from likely psychopaths, from the violent predator to the con artist to the rising start up the corporate ladder that you might have to work with....or even worse, have to work for!
Defense Against the Psychopath

"Most people think of a psychopath as a rare creature found only in the lowest levels of society. However, the reverse is true. They are not rare, but actually quite common,and you are more likely to find psychopaths in the boardroom than on the wrong side of the tracks.

The reason is that the more competitive a particular environment is, the more ruthless the use of the Cheating Strategy becomes. Within the highest circles of power and
wealth, a lack of pity and remorse is practically a prerequisite to success, and only the psychopathic mentality can thrive."

No wonder this world is so screwed up! We not only have a system that rewards aggression, cheating, and ruthlessness; our political and economic values today celebrate the values of the psychopath, and encourage us all to be like them!

[Kman]

Callous disregard for the feelings of others. Check.

Who have a history of total disregard for others? Who has a history of mass murder? Movements lead by poor people, National socialism (that focussed on gaining the support of farmers and factory workers), russian socialism (that killed millions with total disregard for human life), Chinese socialism, North Korean socialism, at the end of the day when you tally up the kill count for evil capitalists it is not even 1% of the number killed by class warriors so dont lecture me on "disregard for others".

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships. Check.

I know rich people who are close friends of my family, they are all far better at maintaining healthy marriages and relationships than the poor people I know. Most of these men are good husbands that bring home the bacon and treat their wives well.

Reckless disregard for the safety of others. Check.

Proof?

Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conniving others for profit. Check.

Incapacity to experience guilt. Check.

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Check.

You sound like a Nazi sympathizer collecting a "fact" sheet on jews, just outrageous, unproven assertions.

[work-in-progress]

Who have a history of total disregard for others? Who has a history of mass murder? Movements lead by poor people, National socialism (that focussed on gaining the support of farmers and factory workers), russian socialism (that killed millions with total disregard for human life), Chinese socialism, North Korean socialism, at the end of the day when you tally up the kill count for evil capitalists it is not even 1% of the number killed by class warriors so dont lecture me on "disregard for others".

Well you sure hit the ground running with pure, 100 proof bullshit here! Anyone with more than the average American fundagelical's understanding of history knows that Nazism cannot be conflated with the applied Marxist governments of the Soviet Union, China and their respective satellites. Marxism began as populist uprisings, and we'll leave it to the political theorists and cultural anthropologists to argue whether dictatorship is an inevitability when these movements are able to overthrow existing regimes and take power....but, there is no argument about where Nazism came from, what it represented, and what its goals were.

In brief, the Nazis represent your values, not the communists. You are a libertarian and therefore a social darwinist, who believes in some form of survival of the fittest using capitalist economics as the determinant of social status -- and so did the Nazis! The only difference between the Nazis and the standard libertarian dogma presented by extreme Republicans like Paul Ryan, is that the Nazis promoted an active program of eugenics and other measures to weed out the week and unfit, while the modern Republican like Ryan or Texas Governor - Rick Perry, wants to kill the impoverished slowly through cuts to Medicaid, Food Stamps and other relief programs.

At the other end of the spectrum, the rich are lauded for their achievements, regardless of whether they actually achieved anything or not -- trust fund millionaires and billionaires or those who enriched themselves through criminal activity....all the same...if you're rich, it means you're a self-starting "job creator" in social darwinist world. The only difference between the relationship of the political fascists like Hitler and Mussolini, and their modern counterparts, is that the power relationships between them have reversed (except for Russia perhaps, where unfavoured billionaires can be thrown in prison). Sheldon Wolin coined the term "Inverted Totalitarianism" to describe the modern globalized corporatocracy that's taken over the world, and when TPP is finalized, will have dictatorial control over the governments of nation-states...making the bleating concerns of libertarians about government power, a moot or irrelevant point! The wealthy industrialists that supported Hitler were taking orders from the Governmentin Hitler's time, today the tail wags the dog:

The great majority of German businessmen behaved in a decidedly unheroic manner during the Nazi era. Most of them, especially leaders of larger companies, not only refrained from risking their lives to save Jews, but actually profited from the use of forced and slave labor, the "Aryanization" of Jewish property, and the plundering of companies in Nazi-occupied Europe.

Their aim was to promote superior individuals and weed out the weak. As applied to economics, this meant killing trade unions and other voices for the working class while promoting the interests of the businessman.

I know rich people who are close friends of my family, they are all far better at maintaining healthy marriages and relationships than the poor people I know. Most of these men are good husbands that bring home the bacon and treat their wives well.

That should be obvious! They have a lot more "bacon" to bring home than people trying to live on the margins. Those of us in the middle of that shrinking middle class, have more bacon and can deal with shrinking purchasing power by cutting back on luxuries rather than going the route that most do of trying to work longer and longer hours to keep stay in place, but the poor don't have luxuries to dispatch in the first place. Feeding their children means already means going to food banks to get a substantial portion of their groceries, so that eliminates fruits and vegetables, and most things considered healthy for the average diet, because a food bank can only keep non-perishables.

It should be so obvious that those who can afford, do not face the same levels of tension in domestic life as the poor. But rather than recognize the impacts that economic stress play in poor health, drug abuse, alcoholism and spousal abuse, the libertarian would rather point fingers at those living in misery and make some shallow attempt to cover their contempt that 'it's up to each individual to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' or similar bullshit.
And we have to continually keep in mind that the mental and physical harms that arise out of economic conditions become worse as income gaps increase. Societies that are relatively more equal (regardless of how they achieve equality) are also happier, healthier and more socially cohesive: THE EQUALITY TRUST
Because more equal societies work better for everyone

Reckless disregard for the safety of others. Check.
Proof

Really! You need proof? Here's one: HSBC. This international too-big-too-fail bank was dealt with HSBC for laundering money for drug cartels and terrorist organizations with a fine and no criminal prosecutions for any of the bank's directors. So, this artificial person gets an easily payable fine that punishes shareholders if anyone, while the real persons who committed these crimes walk away scott free! As Matt Taibi says in that Rolling Stone piece, it proves the drug war is a joke....and a cruel joke at that, because guess who does get incarcerated in the phony war on drugs - the unfortunate drug addicts at the other end of this business.
Outrageous HSBC Settlement Proves the Drug War is a Joke

More? Take your pick from the 2011 list: Top 100 Corporate Crime Stories of 2011

Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conniving others for profit. Check.
Incapacity to experience guilt. Check.
Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Check.
You sound like a Nazi sympathizer collecting a "fact" sheet on jews, just outrageous, unproven assertions.

Wow, that's weak! That's all that's left - play the Hitler card? But that's probably all you got left, because you can't deny that the modern business model rewards behaviour that is defined as psychopathic according to the DSM IV diagnostic check:
STUDY: 10% on Wall Street are Psychopaths

Create a system that rewards psychopathic behaviour, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that psychopaths rise to the top. As for the rest of the business universe, you must be well aware that CEO compensations have grown exponentially over the last 40 years when compared to other income levels. And the modern CEO does not spend his life working for the same corporation as in previous times. Now, it's get in, close plants, cut jobs, raise profits and stock values and get out! And the perfect candidate for the job is the psychopath!

[Kman]

In brief, the Nazis represent your values, not the communists. You are a libertarian and therefore a social darwinist, who believes in some form of survival of the fittest using capitalist economics as the determinant of social status -- and so did the Nazis!

You dont know jack shit about Nazi economics, they conducted heavy economic planning, far more socialist planning than Obama is doing right now, they controlled prices of many goods via their central planning office, here are some pieces of text that explains the extreme socialism and leftism of the Nazi's, I suggest you read it instead of repeating your ignorant and untrue lies about the supposed libertarian leanings of Adolf Hitler (ROFL ROFL ROFL) :

When President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler German Chancellor on January 30, 1933, people did not know what to expect as regards the economic policy of the new regime. There were disturbing signs that the National Socialists had radical reforms in mind. The "unalterable" 25 point 1920 program of the party proposed, among other things, "that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished"; "the nationalization of all trusts"; "profit-sharing in large industries"; and "an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."

In these days of frequent condemnations, sometimes, I regret to say by professed libertarians, of Wal-Mart and similar chains, point 16 of the program is worth noting: "We demand … the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople."

Other signs pointed to a radical program as well. Ferdinand Zimmerman, who worked as an important economic planner for the Nazis, had been before their rise to power a contributor under the pen name Ferdinand Fried, to the journal Die Tat, edited by Hans Zehrer, and a leading member of a group of nationalist intellectuals known as the Tatkreis. Fried strongly opposed capitalism, analyzing it in almost Marxist terms. In an evaluation of Fried's book Das Ende des Kapitalismus (The End of Capitalism), for a possible English translation, Isaiah Berlin referred to

an unconditional acceptance of Marxio-Sombartian premisses with regard to the death of individualism, growth of mass production, collectivism, etc., and from these the natural conclusion is drawn that since collectivism is coming anyway, it might as well be dealt with efficiently and fairly by being converted from trust-collectivism into State-ownership of the means of production. All this of course is the German Social-Democratic Marxism … (Letter from Isaiah Berlin to Geoffrey Faber, January 4, 1932, in Isaiah Berlin, Letters, 1928–1946, Henry Hardy, ed., Cambridge University press, 2004, pp. 638–39)

The second pattern [of socialism] (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production, and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. These are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (the Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham.

[Poelmo]

Awhile back, I listened to an interview of an expert on the topic of psychopathy, who went into some detail on new findings from neuroscience that can identify the physical reasons for this behaviour, and that although those whom would be regarded as psychopaths likely make up about 1% of the general population, their antisocial nature makes them more prone to end up incarcerated...where they likely make up about 20% of prison populations.

What wasn't really addressed was what about the smarter, higher functioning psychopaths who are able to live within societal norms? Not much was said about the likelihood that psychopaths may have perfect tools to rise to the top of the political or business world....except for the obvious - Bernie Madoff; but what about the others who might explain why things are so bad today.

Actually I recall a "study" that came to the conclusion psychopaths and narcissists are overrepresented in the business world (still am absolute minority though they may hold more power than the average executive), especially in the Anglo-Saxon system. I say "study" because they didn't actually test a bunch of executives, but they did look at their lives, words and actions.

Why are some people with billions of dollars getting even more ruthless to gain even more riches? Why are the corporate masters of the universe so nonchalant and careless about the environmental destruction their industries and business practices have created? Doesn't seem like the:"they have children too" argument is working! If these people are psychopaths, and if the artificial persons they've created behave like psychopaths, that would provide a lot of the reasons why they are willing to take us over the cliff today. How many corporate persons would fail the new DSM IV diagnostic criteria:

Yes, many of them are psychopaths but the simple fact that they were born into "the system", just like you and I and that they are so far removed from the consequences of their actions makes it difficult to go against the flow, even if you're not a psychopath. Many problems you describe are systemic and while it's true that executives on average resist positive change far more than you and I, you do not have to be a narcissist or psychopath to be an executive, it sure helps, but psychotic executives are only part of the problem and the majority of executives are not psychotic.


The solution is simple: immunize against corporate influence. Do not allow executives to buy politicians and maintain a strong state presence in the economy: psychopaths are also overrepresented among politicians, but underrepresented among civil servants, who actually run most things and contribute a lot to the decision making (politicians don't write those 100-page laws themselves).

[work-in-progress]

Actually I recall a "study" that came to the conclusion psychopaths and narcissists are overrepresented in the business world (still am absolute minority though they may hold more power than the average executive), especially in the Anglo-Saxon system. I say "study" because they didn't actually test a bunch of executives, but they did look at their lives, words and actions.

That study which estimated that 10% of the traders on Wall Street were psychopaths, would support that view. I'd be surprised if the numbers weren't actually much higher than 10%, since the environment encourages unscrupulous behaviour, and they realize now that the political system is so thoroughly owned by the banks and big money, that there are no real consequences for egregious practices as long as you are a big enough fish in the pond. The days of an Ivan Boesky - someone who was criminally prosecuted and did a brief amount of time in prison for insider trading, are long over! And the big fish know this, as can be seen from the 2008 bank bailouts and the latest slap-on-the-wrist to HSBC shareholders, for crimes of their directors (laundering money from major drug trades and terrorist organizations) give some people life sentences in prison....but those people aren't billionaires running "too big to fail" banks! The only modern Wall Street player to get sent to prison is Bernie Madoff; and after dodging investigators for 20 years who knew he was running a fraudulent operation, what likely took him down was not what he did, but who he did it to. The Wikipedia entry on the Madoff Scandal notes this article at the time of sentencing in the New York Post:

The New York Post reported that Madoff "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach".[44] The New York Times reported that Madoff courted many prominent Jewish executives and organizations; according to the Associated Press, they "trusted [Madoff] because he is Jewish".[41] One of the most prominent promoters was J. Ezra Merkin, whose fund Ascot Partners steered $1.8 billion towards Madoff's firm.[45] A scheme that targets members of a particular religious or ethnic community is a type of affinity fraud, and a Newsweek article identified Madoff's scheme as "an affinity Ponzi".[46]

The lesson for future Wall Street scam artists is, make sure you just rip off people who don't count: like major retirement funds, smaller investors or foreign investors with no clout in the U.S. Justice System. But, if you rip off wealthy Jews living in Manhattan, you'll have your head served on a platter!

I listened to an interview recently with Christopher Bayer - TheWall Street Psychologist with the blog by the same name, who's client list consists of major Wall Street traders and money managers noted that when he asked a client -- who's firm was under investigation by the SEC, if that had any connection with the problems of anxiety and depression which drove him to seek therapy -- he was give a flat out "NO," for a response. The client said that his firm had enough money and enough lawyers to keep the entire Justice Dept. running around for another 10 or 20 years; and that, even if they were serious, they would have to pursue small fines, rather than go for criminal prosecutions. So, the lunatics are running the asylum these days, and they know it! They have nothing to fear, except that someone might outperform them. When it comes to dealing with the public -- there are no rules and no limits. And people wonder why everything is so screwed up today.

Yes, many of them are psychopaths but the simple fact that they were born into "the system", just like you and I and that they are so far removed from the consequences of their actions makes it difficult to go against the flow, even if you're not a psychopath. Many problems you describe are systemic and while it's true that executives on average resist positive change far more than you and I, you do not have to be a narcissist or psychopath to be an executive, it sure helps, but psychotic executives are only part of the problem and the majority of executives are not psychotic.

Chris Bayer, the previously mentioned 'Wall Street Psychologist' also notes that most of the clients he would diagnose as psychopaths or narcissists, are very successful in business, but for some unknown reasons are also prone to chronic depression. Perhaps it's because, as he also notes, this type of personality disorders also have serotonin issues and are always in need of strong stimulus. Many psychopaths and narcissists have life-long issues with drug and alcohol abuse. But, the greatest mental issues are seemingly normal people who have been swept up in the modern cut-throat trading system. Like soldiers in a live-fire zone, these are people who become stressed out because of having to do things and act in ways that violate core personal values. In war zones, psychopaths are the "super soldiers," who never succumb to PTSD, but, as we can see from Iraq and Afghanistan, when they are allowed to act freely and indulge themselves, bad things happen. The mentally normal soldier becomes chronically depressed and even suicidal, when faced with the kill-or-be-killed atmosphere of the war theater, or even the aftermath of abusing war prisoners. Likewise the average, decent business school graduate who lands on Wall Street, is going to be in an atmosphere that runs counter to the way they've been taught to act before, and suffer some fallout if they stay in the game and try to succeed in the world of "Snakes In Suits."

The solution is simple: immunize against corporate influence. Do not allow executives to buy politicians and maintain a strong state presence in the economy: psychopaths are also overrepresented among politicians, but underrepresented among civil servants, who actually run most things and contribute a lot to the decision making (politicians don't write those 100-page laws themselves).

Yes, unfortunately it seems likely that these predators often rise to the top of every organization. I can tell you from personal experience, coming from a politically active family background and volunteering during stages in my life for all three of the major political parties where I live in Canada, that most of the rising stars in politics, who started small and rose to higher office, were invariably superficial, untroubled by controversies and stresses that would be debilitating to most people. And, when they didn't need your help any more, you quickly found out that they weren't your friend in the first place, nor did they have any real core principles that campaign volunteers and supporters shared. I know several who change political parties during their careers without skipping a beat, and even if they did stay with the same party, they remained loyal toadies of the leadership, even as the party made major ideological changes over the years.

A book that might be of interest on the topic of power and how it is wielded, is The Authoritarians by retired psychology prof. Robert Altemeyer. And a quick look shows that Altemeyer still has his web page at the University of Manitoba site, and the book "The Authoritarians" can be downloaded whole or by chapter in pdf. It's something everyone should have a look at! Altemeyer's basic thesis, mostly conducted through examining hundreds of self-reported multiple choice test data, is that there are clear personality distinctions between the leaders of authoritarian movements and their supporters. The supporters tend to be like these tea party activists, who appeared after Altemeyer wrote the book, but make a useful comparison with past authoritarian movements -- mostly simpleminded conservatives who want simple, easy to understand solutions to difficult issues, and they, not surprisingly are typical true blue conservatives, with simple, unyielding views of history and nationalism. And then along come the leaders! Altemeyer refers to this class, who rise to the top and lead authoritarian thinkers who are looking for a leader - as the Social Dominators. Much of the discription of the social dominator fits the description of a psychopath -- especially that they often do not really care about the issues that drive their supporters; they just know that the issues are important and how to use them. That seems to be pretty much modern politics in a nutshell.

[Poelmo]

Yes, unfortunately it seems likely that these predators often rise to the top of every organization. I can tell you from personal experience, coming from a politically active family background and volunteering during stages in my life for all three of the major political parties where I live in Canada, that most of the rising stars in politics, who started small and rose to higher office, were invariably superficial, untroubled by controversies and stresses that would be debilitating to most people. And, when they didn't need your help any more, you quickly found out that they weren't your friend in the first place, nor did they have any real core principles that campaign volunteers and supporters shared. I know several who change political parties during their careers without skipping a beat, and even if they did stay with the same party, they remained loyal toadies of the leadership, even as the party made major ideological changes over the years.

Yes, I too am know a thing or two about this, most are only in it for their own career and the ones that do have a vision of something greater than their personal wellbeing are often completely crazy. I've literally heard people say they were going to go into politics and would figure out their positions later. It's a shame great leaders from the past didn't know this would happen. Future great leaders should work on instilling traditions in the media and politics that flush out the phonies in favor of people with more vision and in-depth knowledge. The great leaders would have to destroy opponents on the facts and find journalists that dare to ask informed tough questions and are willing to let go of false balance, mostly importantly courses on PR-spin and logical fallacies should be required for all high school students. Then again nothing is eternal: people even found ways to pervert the new testament into a culture of bigotry and byzantine living rules (though the education part I suggested might have helped combat this).

[onemalehuman]

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors. Check.

Here is the largest gaping hole in human intelligence as it applies to the concept of human intellect. This is reality directed by art. This is the core of corruption in every social enterprise of staging acts of humanity in societal evolution

Before jumping to conclusion or saving past leaps of faith ask yourself what are the 4 axioms of right and wrong with the 3 axises of character matters in social engineering society of sole ancestors becoming a collective ideology?

All laws are subjected to interpretation from moral, legal, nd ethical translations from institutions housing ideologies of spirit, body, spirit as a social member casted in the three worlds of "if true" compared to "is real", and soul as a species.

this creates the illusion of parallel universes, genetic continuation and societal evolution. Periodic table against invented alphabets.

so far every invented alphabet imploded. What is the common mistake every society that failed made?

Created time as a power source of energy. Wrong concept. correct assumption is a merger between immovable objects and an irresistable force. being unmagnetized matter and a single charge that magnetizes some particles.

this started contracting result expanding details to a point of perpetual universal balanci9ng only existing in this moment.

Time is always now as space never remains what it had added up to till this moment. Some call it the God element, others before that called it Karma. Does it matter who calls it anything as it is the same for everything here now?


Serenity in knowing what one can change and understanding what changes them outside their control. Imagine thinking the philosophy of think out of the box was just simple power of suggestion to think outside your own functioning skin to live asking what if now isn't eternity, what could be eternal life?

checks and balancing nowhere else but within this moment nobody believes now is eternity. Where and what is freedom from every character playing a role in societal evolution seeks escaping genetic continuation as it exists as existed and continues within an atmosphere of adapt or become extinct.

I learned a whole new way of thinking in the last decade and I share it for free, will anyone believe me? So far none, everyone tells me "they cannot believe it".

Cannot or will not accept?

This is why I have become so non understandable, I speak about physical absolutes in plain sight, not moral superioity in ethical treatment in laws that rule what reality becomes for every next ancestor added to this atmosphere now, in the moment genetic details are never duplicated while constantly being added within the same self contained planetary content.

Homo Sapiens need to stop playing games of tilting the moment in their ideological favor for generations, that is what produces self fulfilling prophecy.

[baltwade]

I think you're mixing things up here. There's a big difference between a psychopath and someone who is totally indifferent to an "other" that they don't see as being the same as them. Psychopaths, true psychopaths that is, aren't able to form any kind of emotional bond with anyone. They would just as easily kill their own parent, spouse, or children as they would a complete stranger if it suited their purpose. They can't feel remorse, sympathy, and definitely not empathy. That's a big difference than some rich guy not caring what happens to the lower classes, or even some wanting the destruction of an entire class of people based on their race or religion or social status or political beliefs.

[Potemkin]

I think you're mixing things up here. There's a big difference between a psychopath and someone who is totally indifferent to an "other" that they don't see as being the same as them. Psychopaths, true psychopaths that is, aren't able to form any kind of emotional bond with anyone. They would just as easily kill their own parent, spouse, or children as they would a complete stranger if it suited their purpose. They can't feel remorse, sympathy, and definitely not empathy. That's a big difference than some rich guy not caring what happens to the lower classes, or even some wanting the destruction of an entire class of people based on their race or religion or social status or political beliefs.

I'm inclined to agree. Ed Kemper, for example, murdered his grandparents and even own mother simply because he "wanted to know what it would feel like". Clearly, there is a huge difference between a person like this and your average successful CEO, and we need to be able to distinguish between them. A definition of 'psychopathy' which makes no such distinction and according to which a large proportion of the human race could be labelled as 'psychopathic' is not very useful or informative, in my opinion. There's a difference between being a psychopath and just being an asshole.

[Ambroise]

The problem at hand is not that there are a few psychopaths placed in powerful positions, running around. It'd be easy to fix, if that were the problem. I am sure many of these people, in their personal lives, are capable of great and unreserved generosity. In fact, that's been true historically as well; many of the earlier capitalists and entrepreneurs, despite their ruthless and callous efficiency in the workplace, contributed to all sorts of philanthropic causes, rather generously, when they didn't have to. The problem is a structural one, it's a systemic thing. There's an entire system that incentives, or tends to produce this sort of behavior in certain economic situations, and that's the problem. It's not that these people are all psychopaths. Personalizing it is meaningless and distracts us from the real problem.

[Potemkin]

The problem at hand is not that there are a few psychopaths placed in powerful positions, running around. It'd be easy to fix, if that were the problem. I am sure many of these people, in their personal lives, are capable of great and unreserved generosity. In fact, that's been true historically as well; many of the earlier capitalists and entrepreneurs, despite their ruthless and callous efficiency in the workplace, contributed to all sorts of philanthropic causes, rather generously, when they didn't have to. The problem is a structural one, it's a systemic thing. There's an entire system that incentives, or tends to produce this sort of behavior in certain economic situations, and that's the problem. It's not that these people are all psychopaths. Personalizing it is meaningless and distracts us from the real problem.

^ This. As a Marxist, I was dismayed and disappointed by the demonisation of bankers which occurred during and just after the financial crisis of 2008. Most of the public made the mistake - and still make the mistake - of personalising what was, in fact, a systemic problem. Calling these people "psychopaths" or "thieves" or "parasites" or whatnot gets us nowhere. It's not a case of a few individual bankster-psychos manipulating the behaviour of the system; in fact the system manipulated their behaviour.

[work-in-progress]

The problem at hand is not that there are a few psychopaths placed in powerful positions, running around. It'd be easy to fix, if that were the problem. I am sure many of these people, in their personal lives, are capable of great and unreserved generosity.

And they are not! One study after another, continuously shows that those less well off...even in need themselves...are more generous than those higher up, especially at the top.

In fact, that's been true historically as well; many of the earlier capitalists and entrepreneurs, despite their ruthless and callous efficiency in the workplace, contributed to all sorts of philanthropic causes, rather generously, when they didn't have to.

When a billionaire does charity...like Bill Gates, it is for tax purposes, and even for sinister business interests that weren't noticed at first...such as Gates's education efforts in light of the fact that he will benefit financially from the privatization of public schools in America and elsewhere. And a good example of how the rich skew charitable giving, can be found in status cultural touchstones like the New York Metropolitan Opera is swimming in cash, as thousands of charities that do real, important functions are having to cut back on their services.

The problem is a structural one, it's a systemic thing. There's an entire system that incentives, or tends to produce this sort of behavior in certain economic situations, and that's the problem. It's not that these people are all psychopaths. Personalizing it is meaningless and distracts us from the real problem.
As a Marxist, I was dismayed and disappointed by the demonisation of bankers which occurred during and just after the financial crisis of 2008. Most of the public made the mistake - and still make the mistake - of personalising what was, in fact, a systemic problem. Calling these people "psychopaths" or "thieves" or "parasites" or whatnot gets us nowhere. It's not a case of a few individual bankster-psychos manipulating the behaviour of the system; in fact the system manipulated their behaviour.

This is not an either/or situation! Hedge fund brokers favour psychopathy, so they likely have a high number in their ranks. And other sociological studies I've linked in the past indicate that normal functioning people who join the business take on many of the aspects of thinking like a psychopath when they are focused on competing with real psychopaths in the amoral search for greater profits. This is no different than what is witnessed in war zones, so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

You can't just say these people are manipulated by "the system," as if they would be great guys if they hadn't been swallowed up by the evil corporation!

[baltwade]

When a billionaire does charity...like Bill Gates, it is for tax purposes, and even for sinister business interests that weren't noticed at first...such as Gates's education efforts in light of the fact that he will benefit financially from the privatization of public schools in America and elsewhere

You might want to look into the Gates Foundation a little more. The things that he's trying to accomplish are simply amazing. He's spending a ton of money to eradicate Tuberculosis and Polio from the Earth. Two diseases that are already pretty much eradicated from most industrialized countries and basically only exist in the poorest. You can't make money by doing that. You could argue he's only doing it to cement and elevate his legacy as history's greatest humanitarian just to appease his giant ego, but I'm not sure what the harm in that would be ... and it's definitely not sinister.