Psychopaths rise to the top of organisations

HappyMonday

Moderator
Because for the psychopaths that tend to rise to the top of any organization or group of people it's not so much about "population control" or abortion or even the money... as it is about total control, i.e. total "tool use."

Individuals with multiple psychopathic traits tend to be a destructive force to their organisations as far as I've read, even if they do manage to manipulate themselves into a position of advantage it's often relatively short-lived.
 
Last edited:
Individuals with multiple psychopathic traits tend to be a destructive force to their organisations as far as I've read, even if they do manage to manipulate themselves into a position of advantage it's often relatively short-lived.

Depends on what you mean by short lived, as some organizations ruled by almost nothing but psychopaths may last your entire life span. For instance... Maddoff could only push his paper ponzi so far but there seems to be no end in sight for the Fed and the private banking families that own the paradigm of ponzi he operated within as a fellow traveller.

Worth noting that psychopaths have been known to be capable of forming "gangs" ruled by gangsterism, as in organized crime and so forth. No word yet on how short lived the rule of banksters will be... relatively short-lived in the context of the rise and fall of civilizations and empires, I guess. But not short lived if you look at your life span or are expecting to collect your retirement when their petrodollars can no longer be infused with enough value from the oil trade, the drug trade... or brave patriots fighting Afghan peasants over the nature of Obama's hopium and change and so forth.
 
I was taking issue with your simplification that psychopaths 'tend to rise to the top of organisations'. I don't think it's helpful to generalise like that.

Organisations find themselves being easily fooled by psychopath's, particularly when recruiting. Many of these people go on to cause harm to the organisation later, because the same characteristics make them bad at actually achieving anything.

Can you give me an example of an organisation 'ruled entirely by psychopaths', in your eyes?
 
Goldman Sachs... and the Fed, i.e. the private banking cartel and the families that own it. (Must be a "fun" family to be in.)

Perhaps it could be looked at this way, where one or two are gathered together in order to create debt/money there the Devil/reptilian/psychopath is also.

Those families are seldom in the news and so forth... but at a lower level at places like Goldman Sachs:
The hubbub is just starting to pick up after NZZ Online’s report yesterday on a University of St. Gallen study that shows stock market traders display similarities to certified psychopaths. The study, authored by MBA students Pascal Scherrer and Thomas Noll, compares decisions made by 27 equity, derivative and forex traders in a computer simulation against an existing study of 24 psychopaths in high-security hospitals in Germany. Not only do the traders match their counterparts, but, as Der Speigel succinctly puts it, the “stockbrokers’ behavior is more reckless and manipulative than that of psychopaths.”
The traders, according to Noll, were fixated on gaining more than their competitors in the computer simulation – to the extent that they “spent a lot of energy trying to damage their opponents.” He compared the behavior to bashing a neighbor’s fancy car with a baseball bat in order to make your own car the nicest in the neighborhood. Traders Are Psychopaths
Content from External Source
A theory of psychopaths combined with theories about secret societies might have some explanatory power with respect to all that seemed to go on between different intelligence agencies around the world and so forth on 911.

Or perhaps a more interesting angle on it might be the fact that the internet and the "empathetic civilization" that it seems bound to create through what amounts to synthetic telepathy/empathy and the ability to see things from a different perspective is on a collision course with existing power structures. I think I saw something about that or along those lines on Youtube:


There again, the freedom to connect that creates the internet may be centralized and controlled eventually (RIP Aaron Swartz... wait, is that another SWAT team raid at Megaupload incoming?) based on a massive false flag attack or a series of smaller operations that would eventually allow psychopaths to begin to have more control over it. The thing about that is, there are people like Snowden and Sibel Edmonds within the system or working for the multinational corporations and so forth.

I doubt that Snowden is a member of a secret society, given that he doesn't have the same "top secret" mentality that's typical to many psychopaths. Even if they don't fear things that a more normal or caring person might they still seem to fear exposure of their calculating forms of "tool use" and so forth, as do we all. I wouldn't put "psychopathic" and "empathetic" as totally separate categories, as psychopaths can often form "gangs" and initiate/incorporate others into their way of being so long as they get to play the part of the ruler/measure/calculator and so forth. It's just that it's sometimes useful to try to isolate or categorize extremes in order to try to understand a more complex continuum or spectrum.

Even Jesus said that people need to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, as I recall. Probably getting too long but it's worth pointing out His "extraordinary" attitude about money/debt, given the way that it seems to create psychopaths:
In the Bible, as in Mesopotamia, “freedom,” came to refer above all to release from the effects of debt. Over time, the history of the Jewish people itself came to be interpreted in this light: the liberation from bondage in Egypt was God’s first, paradigmatic act of redemption; the historical tribulations of the Jews (defeat, conquest, exile) were seen as misfortunes that would eventually lead to a final redemption with the coming of the Messiah...
In this light, the adoption of the term by Christians is hardly surprising. Redemption was a release from one’s burden of sin and guilt, and the end of history would be that moment when all slates are wiped clean and all debts finally lifted, when a great blast from angelic trumpets will announce the final Jubilee.
If so, “redemption” is no longer about buying something back. It's really more a matter of destroying the entire system of accounting. In many Middle Eastern cities, this was literally true: one of the common acts during debt cancellation was the ceremonial destruction of the tablets on which financial records had been kept, an act to be repeated, much less officially, in just about every major peasant revolt in history.
This leads to another problem: What is possible in the meantime, before that final redemption comes? In one of his more disturbing parables, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Jesus seemed to be explicitly playing with the problem: Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to
settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a
man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him.
Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and
his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay
the debt.
The servant fell on his knees before him. “Be patient with
me,” he begged, “and I will pay back everything.” The servant’s
master took pity on him, canceled the debt, and let him go.
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow
servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him
and began to choke him. “Pay back what you owe me!” he
demanded.
His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, “Be
patient with me, and I will pay you back.”
But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown
into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other ser-
vants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and
went and told their master everything that had happened.
Then the master called the servant in. “You wicked servant,”
he said, “I canceled all that debt of yours because you
begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow
servant just as I had on you?” In anger his master turned him
over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all
he owed.”


This is quite an extraordinary text. On one level it’s a joke; in others, it could hardly be more serious. We begin with the king wishing to “settle accounts” with his servants. The premise is absurd. Kings, like gods, can't really enter into relations of exchange with their subjects, since no parity is possible. And this is a king who clearly is God. Certainly there can be no final settling of accounts. So at best we are dealing with an act of whimsy on the king’s part. The absurdity of the premise is hammered home by the sum the first man brought before him is said to owe. In ancient Judaea, to say someone owes a creditor “ten thousand talents” would be like now saying someone owes “a hundred. billion dollars.” The number is a joke, too; it simply stands in for “a sum no human being could ever conceivably repay.”"
Faced with infinite, existential debt, the servant can only tell obvious lies: “A hundred billion? Sure, I'm good for it! Just give me a little more time.” Then, suddenly, apparently just as arbitrarily, the Lord forgives him.
Yet, it turns out, the amnesty has a condition he is not aware of. It is incumbent on his being willing to act in an analogous way to other humans-in this particular case, another servant who owes him (to translate again into contemporary terms), maybe a thousand bucks. Failing the test, the human is cast into hell for all eternity, or "until he should pay back all he owed," which in this case comes down to the same thing.
...what is... striking to me is the tacit suggestion that forgiveness, in this world, is ultimately impossible. (Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber: 82-84)​
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I should note that I pulled a Darwin on you, so "ruled almost entirely by psychopaths" doesn't necessarily mean "ruled entirely by psychopaths."

Instead.. after I begin theorizing about things for a while, I may move the goal posts accordingly later and so forth. By the end of it, you might be wondering if I actually meant that almost everyone in those organizations is supposed to be altruistic and empathetic instead of selfish and psychopathic.

I've almost always liked Darwin. But I reserve the right to change my mind about that at times.
 
Last edited:
Goldman Sachs... and the Fed, i.e. the private banking cartel and the families that own it. (Must be a "fun" family to be in.)

Perhaps it could be looked at this way, where one or two are gathered together in order to create debt/money there the Devil/reptilian/psychopath is also.

Shall we start with Goldman Sachs, rather than instantly expanding this discussion to a completely unmanageable number of topics?
 
There's lots of research on psychopaths in organization, and because it's an interesting topic you tend to see stories in the news about it (the research) every few weeks. It seems a little more complex that simply psychopathy in the traits that successful people have - it's quite a mix.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/apr/18/medicineandhealth
Many years ago I worked for a man who forced a pair of employees who had just ended their relationship to move to adjacent workstations. He did it purely for his amusement. Doubtless everyone has a story of this ilk. But scientific evidence that leaders really are different in their personal pathology from the rest of us has been lacking - until now. Case studies by psychologists have claimed that "successful psychopaths" really exist. These are portrayed as emotionally detached, with superficial charm and an unbounded preparedness to use others, differing only from personality-disordered criminal psychopaths in being law-abiding and less impulsive. Because such reports are ultimately anecdotal, Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon of Surrey University decided to test whether there was any overlap between the personalities of business managers, psychiatric patients and hospitalised criminals (psychopathic and psychiatrically ill). Their results, published last month, make startling reading.

Board and Fritzon found that three of 11 personality disorders (PDs) were actually commoner in managers than in disturbed criminals. The first was histrionic PD, entailing superficial charm, insincerity, egocentricity and manipulativeness. There was also a higher incidence of narcissism: grandiosity, self-focused lack of empathy for others, exploitativeness and independence. Finally, there was more compulsive PD in the managers, including perfectionism, excessive devotion to work, rigidity, stubbornness and dictatorial tendencies.

So far, so David Brent, and it's easy to see how these characteristics might contribute to office skills. But unlike Brent, these bosses were less likely to have several career-stopping PD traits. They were less prone to physical aggression, irresponsibility and law-breaking (antisocial PD); they had less impulsivity, suicidal gestures and emotional instability (borderlines); and they were less prone to hostility followed by contrition (passive-aggressives). David Brent's possession of several of these traits explain his managerial failure (and if The Office had continued, are why he would have ended up in psychiatric care).
Content from External Source
The book "The Psychopath Test" popularized this. But also gives some perspective on the incidence:

British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths — dangerous predators who lack the behavioral controls and tender feelings the rest of us take for granted. Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.
Content from External Source
4% is not a lot (it would still be 1% even if psychopathy had no bearing), but this often gets boiled down to "our rulers are psychopaths, so they will kill us all".
 
I should note that I pulled a Darwin on you, so "ruled almost entirely by psychopaths" doesn't necessarily mean "ruled entirely by psychopaths."

Instead.. after I begin theorizing about things for a while, I may move the goal posts accordingly later and so forth. By the end of it, you might be wondering if I actually meant that almost everyone is supposed to be altruistic.

I like Darwin. But I reserve the right to change my mind about that later.

This doesn't mean anything to me, other than perhaps you're trying to reserve the right to change your stance after you've thought about what you've said.

Maybe solidify your position first, before engaging in debate?
 
The book "The Psychopath Test" popularized this. But also gives some perspective on the incidence:

British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths — dangerous predators who lack the behavioral controls and tender feelings the rest of us take for granted. Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.
Content from External Source
4% is not a lot (it would still be 1% even if psychopathy had no bearing), but this often gets boiled down to "our rulers are psychopaths, so they will kill us all".

I recommend Snakes in Suits (at least the first half, before it descends into a LOT of discussion about how institutions can protect themselves from psychopaths), co-written with the guy who developed the original scales for diagnosing a psychopathic individual.
 
Last edited:
Shall we start with Goldman Sachs, rather than instantly expanding this discussion to a completely unmanageable number of topics?

Sure... maybe I'll try to read and write a little more about Lloyd Blankfein's ideas about doing "God's work" later.
 
Sure... maybe I'll try to read and write a little more about Lloyd Blankfein's ideas about doing "God's work" later.

I'm fine with it if it's relevant. I just think you need to provide some evidence that Goldman-Sachs is an organisation ruled by psychopaths before linking it up with 9/11 and intelligence agencies, for the purpose of this thread at least.

Did I read your original point correctly, that you think the behaviour of some of the people at the head of that organisation goes beyond the desire to make money?
 
I'm fine with it if it's relevant. I just think you need to provide some evidence that Goldman-Sachs is an organisation ruled by psychopaths before linking it up with 9/11 and intelligence agencies, for the purpose of this thread at least.

Did I read your original point correctly, that you think the behaviour of some of the people at the head of that organisation goes beyond the desire to make money?

I think that those most interested in making or creating debt/money might tend to be "psychopaths." Was Bernie Maddoff a psychopath or did he "just want to make money," supposedly just like everyone else on the planet*?

Are you aware of any research having to do with a link between psychopathy and money or the idea of symbolic control over labor and the creation of wealth? That might be an interesting avenue. I'm not sure that the direction things are headed will work out well. Because if money is going to be used to rule/measure and monetize the entire "New World Order" then Mick's attempt at reduction: "our rulers are psychopaths" might be fairly accurate. But they wouldn't want to kill us all, they'd merely want to control us all and use us and our families as their tools and so forth.

*Except for Buddhist monks that have apparently rewired their brains through thousands of hours of meditation. And others, etc.
In a striking difference between novices and monks, the latter showed a dramatic increase in high-frequency brain activity called gamma waves during compassion meditation. Thought to be the signature of neuronal activity that knits together far-flung brain circuits, gamma waves underlie higher mental activity such as consciousness. The novice meditators "showed a slight increase in gamma activity, but most monks showed extremely large increases of a sort that has never been reported before in the neuroscience literature," says Prof. Davidson, suggesting that mental training can bring the brain to a greater level of consciousness.
Scans of Monks' Brains Show Meditation Alters Structure, Functioning
Content from External Source
I suspect that they're a long way from psychopathy, the concept of "making money" or ruling/measuring the world. It would be interesting to scan the brains of our ruling class here in America and the banksters and so forth to check for a contrast.
 
I think that those most interested in making or creating debt/money might tend to be "psychopaths." Was Bernie Maddoff a psychopath or did he "just want to make money," supposedly just like everyone else on the planet*?

Are you aware of any research having to do with a link between psychopathy and money or the idea of symbolic control over labor and the creation of wealth?

See above:
the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.
Content from External Source
 
I think that those most interested in making or creating debt/money might tend to be "psychopaths." Was Bernie Maddoff a psychopath or did he "just want to make money," supposedly just like everyone else on the planet*?

Is that a 'yes' to the Goldman-Sachs question?

Again, I'm keen to avoid broadening the discussion to the relative mental state of a Buddhist monk.

As it goes, I think that the Ronson book's 4% strap-claim is based on the work of Bob Hare and Babiak. I need to refer back to the book to confirm Ronson's source, but for the sake of rigor here's a precis of the conclusion from their study from another source -

In 2010, however, Paul Babiak, Robert Hare and Craig Neumann had the opportunity to examine psychopathy in a sample of 203 individuals from numerous companies’ management development programs. While these individuals were not yet at the top rungs of their organizations, they were on track potentially to get there.

...The research showed that approximately 3% of those assessed in this management development program study scored in the psychopath range – well above the incidence of 1% in the general population. By comparison, the incidence of psychopathy in prison populations is estimated at around 15%.
Content from External Source
http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorl...bing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

PubMed
 
Last edited:
As for the financial services specifically, there's been some controversy arising from this research after it's passed through the journalistic filter back in 2012.

It transformed into the following claim, which caused a stir -

"One out of every 10 Wall Street employees is likely a clinical psychopath, writes journalist Sherree DeCovny in an upcoming issue of the trade publication CFA Magazine (subscription required). In the general population the rate is closer to one percent,"
Content from External Source
...and was debunked to some extent -

I did what any journalist writing about a famous researcher should do before saying he said something that seems a little “out there” — I contacted Hare to ask him about this data. Here’s his response to the claim that 1 in 10 (10 percent) of financial industry employees is a “psychopath:”

I don’t know who threw out the 10% but it certainly it did not come from me or my colleagues.

The article to which you refer describes a sample of “203 corporate professionals selected by their companies to participate in management development programs.” The sample was not randomly selected or necessarily representative of managers or executives, or of the corporations in which they work.

The approximately 4% who had a PCL-R score high enough for a research description as psychopathic cannot be be generalized to the larger population of managers and executives, or to CEOs and the “financial services industry.”

So to be crystal clear here, one out of every ten wall street employees is NOT a psychopath. At least not according to any actual scientific research. DeCovny took a professional’s word (Bayer’s) that this is what the research showed; and she had no reason to doubt him. But she also didn’t verify the information for herself (like I did), or bother contacting Hare to ensure the data being attributed to him was correct. (We could not reach Christopher Bayer in time to comment on the discrepancy between what he told DeCovny, and what Hare actually researched.)
Content from External Source
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archiv...ery-10-wall-street-employees-is-a-psychopath/
 
See above:
the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.
Content from External Source

I don't necessarily look at it that way though, where there's a category that can be defined. It might be more of a continuum. And I'm interested in the role that money or the concept of symbols of debt plays in psychopathy vs. empathy for many people. (Although there's also the idea of the "1%"... in which case the many don't matter.)

I guess the idea that you've found or observed "4 percent" scientifically is a start. Guess I'll have to look up studies on the brain when it "sees" the concept of debt/money. There again, you could probably just observe the whole person and their behavior when it comes to the concept of money/debt.

Something along the lines of these observations:
 
Back
Top