Commenter chartreuse writes:
great wealth was never a virtue in itself nor a sign of virtuein christendom and only since 1980 in the US.
most people were very suspicious of the super rich in the early 20th c.
chomsky has noted this.
sociopathy the way i use the word is a necessary accompaniment of elite status, unless you’ve inheritied it.
it is the inability to distinguish between what is “appropriate” and what is right and the inability to distinguish social status from virtue.
in this sense almost every one is a sociopath. and this explains why things like nazi germany and the stalinist soviet union can happen.
two fundamental truths:
1. the norms, conventions, mores, and institutions of a society stand or fall not by the opinions of its members in general but by the opinions of its power elite, which is always a tiny minority.
2. every human society’s power elite is “selected” such that the elite is composed of exactly those people who either:
a. most agree with the status quo, have internalized the ruling ideology….socipaths in my sense of the word.
OR
b. are sociopaths…in the psychiatric sense…who believe nothing and are always faking for their own benefit, that is, those for whom dissembling is as natural as telling the truth.
if you listened to the chomsky vid i posted last, he says…
whatever your native ability, if you think the system you live in is shit you’ll wind up “driving a cab”…and no conspiracy is required…it’s simply the nature of human societies.
chomsky admits that he faked it until he got tenure, but that most people simply can’t endure the bullshit…that he is a rare exception.
The problem with arguing that people at the top are sociopaths is it comes across as sour grapes: They’re not richer and more powerful than me because they’re better than I am, they got there by being monsters.
But the problem with arguing that people at the top are better than we are, is you come across as a pathetic sycophantic doormat, who worships the very elites who exploit you.
So as a wannabe scientist, I decided to look at the data. I found research showing that while 1% of the general population is sociopathic enough to be considered a psychopath (an arbitrary cutoff point), 4% of top executives are. This implies that with reference to the general U.S. population, top executives have a normalized Z score of +0.6 in psychopathy.
I estimate that only about one in 600 American middle aged adults become as rich or powerful as the top executives in this study. In other words, people with a normalized Z of +2.93 in money/power, have a normalized Z of +0.6 in psychopathy. Assuming a bivariate normal distribution which is roughly linear to the extremes (the default assumption in my view) this implies the correlation between money/power and psychopathy is 0.20 (0.6/2.93). But since the measure of psychopathy in the study was quite crude (a check list not a brain scan), which probably only correlates 0.7 with true psychopathy, the true correlation is probably something like 0.2/0.7 = 0.29.
So your average self-made billionaire (an astonishing +4.87 normalized Z in income) might be +4.87(0.29) = +1.41 in psychopathy. The average self-made U.S. president (a stratospheric +5.4 in self-made power) might be +5.4(0.29) = +1.57 in psychopathy.
In other words, the average self-made U.S. president would be more psychopathic than 95% of Americans, but there would likely be a bell curve, with some self-made presidents being absolute monsters, and a small minority being less psychopathic than the average American. Historians have ranked Jimmy Carter as perhaps the least psychopathic president and found that even among presidents, certain psychopathic traits positively correlate with job performance. Of the first 43 U.S. presidents, the following were ranked highest on certain psychopathic traits according to a study by Lilienfeld et al. (2012):
- Theodore Roosevelt
- John F. Kennedy
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Ronald Reagan
- Rutherford B. Hayes
- Zachary Taylor
- Bill Clinton
- Martin Van Buren
- Andrew Jackson
- George W. Bush
Leading psychopathy expert James Fallon (you got to love this guy because not only does he study psychopath, but he actually admits to being one, at least biologically, yet continues to be a respected academic) explains which historical leaders were and were not psychopaths.
[Update Jan 29, 2016: an earlier version of this article included scores beside each president, but these were removed because they were being misinterpreted.]
Pumpkin Person 
Interesting post and great comment from chartreuse. I think one of the differentiating characteristics of the Anglo-prole-sphere is that it seems almost everybody’s obsessed with getting rich, and thus seem a little sociopathic. Hence, Oprah, the “prosperity gospel” popular within evangelical churches, and multi-level marketing.
Social scientists are also obsessed with the reason behind income/wealth inequality, although of course most of them are entirely wrong in their explanations. But the psychometricians figured out that this little thing called intelligence explains at least some the variation in income/wealth, so a whole blogo-sphere (HBD) grew up around this simplistic idea that IQ explains everything about why some people’s lives suck and other people’s lives are amazing.
And then we get the most perspicacious commentators, like chartreuse, who realize that IQ is part of the equation but by no means all of it. I mean, it’s quite clear that a lot of extremely rich people are not quite the best people, so much so that even Jesus Christ didn’t like them, but for some reason in the modern West we have psychometricians and libertarians and Objectivists telling us that the rich are successful simply because they’re genetically or morally superior to the rest of us.
Sociopathy is clearly one characteristic that differentiates the rich from the rest of us. Sure, I’ll agree with the libertarian/Randian mantra that they’re harder-working/more ambitious than us too. But if you’re willing to bend the rules and cheat the system and not feel bad about it, of course you’ll get ahead. At least for a while (until Wall Street collapses due to a housing bubble or something, but eventually the fraudulent behavior will just start over again).
As far as political power, sociopathy helps again. Look at Nixon. Look at Clinton. As to the study you linked to, Kennedy could have easily been #1. I read the biography about him by Robert Dallek. Kennedy was constantly fucking every whore in sight during his entire marriage, and throughout his time in office. An associate noted Kennedy’s ability to compartmentalize his various affairs in his mind without ever feeling remorse about them. His cronies and hanger-ons like his brother-in-law Peter Lawford were all heavily into drugs. On top of that, Kennedy himself was weekly getting shot up with amphetamines and steroids during his presidency due to Addison’s disease. And the American public worshiped him like a movie star or a god, even calling his presidency “Camelot”. Also read the book about Lyndon Johnson by Roger Stone. Just crazy stuff…
As to the second of chartreuse’s fundamental truths, the people who internalize the norms/values of a society aren’t really sociopaths in the truest sense– a lot of them will become pretty successful, but they’ll never become truly apart of the ruling elite. It’s only the high-IQ psychiatric psychopaths that truly rule society, the ones who have no values or beliefs other than obtaining power. Aka, Hillary Clinton (LOL) 😀
Sociopathic behavior is basically a trait on a spectrum that leads to a high-risk/high-reward lifestyle. There’s at least two major components to psychopathy– impulsiveness and fearless dominance. The first of these tends to lead to problems, especially in the low-IQ (the combination of low-IQ and the impulsive side of sociopathy is also known as anti-social personality disorder). These people engage in violence, get addicted to drugs, have kids out of wedlock, etc. The second of those components, however, is associated with “leadership” ability– low reactivity to stress, high self-esteem, ability to control others.
Anyhow, I hope to see more studies on the sociopathy trait, because it’s an understudied concept in the human sciences, and especially as it relates to HBD. Jayman and HBD Chick have led the way in making the link between clannish behaviors and sociopathic traits. Societies that have a lot of sociopaths are usually unstable, but sociopathic individuals or groups within a non-sociopathic society are often extremely successful.
I would also posit that much of what we consider to sociopathic traits are just extreme versions of “masculine” personality traits– callousness, low empathy, selfishness, low self-reflection, narcissism, status-seeking etc. People with these traits will thrive if surrounded by people without these traits, in the same way men with these traits will often thrive with women. Something interesting to think about…
Anyhow, interesting post, keep up the good work Pumpkin!
*I was typing this fast, so I used psychopathy and sociopathy interchangeably, but I know some writers distinguish between the two. But anyhow…
And then we get the most perspicacious commentators, like chartreuse, who realize that IQ is part of the equation but by no means all of it.
Even IQ and psychopathy combined probably don’t explain anywhere near half the variation in income or power, though I think IQ explains more.
I mean, it’s quite clear that a lot of extremely rich people are not quite the best people, so much so that even Jesus Christ didn’t like them,
He was just jealous 🙂
but for some reason in the modern West we have psychometricians and libertarians and Objectivists telling us that the rich are successful simply because they’re genetically or morally superior to the rest of us.
Extremists on both sides are not willing to give an inch. You have libertarians saying wealth is all about merit and then you have leftists saying it’s all about evil. Clearly it’s correlated with both, and a lot more.
Sociopathy is clearly one characteristic that differentiates the rich from the rest of us. Sure, I’ll agree with the libertarian/Randian mantra that they’re harder-working/more ambitious than us too. But if you’re willing to bend the rules and cheat the system and not feel bad about it, of course you’ll get ahead.
It’s like any other game. Some will win fairly, others will win by cheating, and some will win through both.
It’s also Darwinian. In nature, it’s not just the smartest monkey that survives, it’s also the monkey that’s willing to steal your bananas.
As to the second of chartreuse’s fundamental truths, the people who internalize the norms/values of a society aren’t really sociopaths in the truest sense– a lot of them will become pretty successful, but they’ll never become truly apart of the ruling elite. It’s only the high-IQ psychiatric psychopaths that truly rule society, the ones who have no values or beliefs other than obtaining power. Aka, Hillary Clinton (LOL) 😀
You watched tonight’s debate too? 🙂
What I want to know is how linear is the correlation between psychopathy and success. Is it just that the rich and powerful are more psychopathic than average or are the poor less psychopathic than average? If the correlation is truly linear, than the homeless should be the least psychopathic of all.
Another interesting factor is that IQ and psychopathy both predict success, yet are negatively correlated with each other.
*I was typing this fast, so I used psychopathy and sociopathy interchangeably, but I know some writers distinguish between the two. But anyhow…
I did the same thing. I’ve heard the difference is whether you believe it’s caused by nature (psychopathy) or nurture (sociopathy). I prefer the term sociopathy because it’s less likely to be confused with psychotic and less related to serial killers, but academics seem to use psychopathy more.
I think both terms have been largely replaced by anti-social personality disorder.
I’ve always assumed the correlation between sociopathy and success to be non-linear because sociopathy is a high-risk/high-reward lifestyle. Just like how in the short-term risky stock traders may be extremely successful or unsuccessful, sociopaths may end up taking risks that make them extremely rich or powerful, or extremely poor and weak.
I think one of the differentiating characteristics of the Anglo-prole-sphere is that it seems almost everybody’s obsessed with getting rich.
because the powerful also control the mass media and formal education, the general population tends to be indoctrinated.
chomsky refers to the US as a “highly indoctrinated society”.
and americans are farily conformist as OECD countries go, despite their “rugged individualism” bullshit.
when thought is itself manufactured and a tiny elite own the means of its production, the range of thought from the highest to the lowest is going to be narrow.
it’s funny how sanders is asked in every debate, “how can a socialist be elected president of the US?”
the best performing stock market in the OECD since the mid 90s has been?
sweden’s.
Speaking of Jimmy Carter, I know some people who worked for him a long time ago who described him as “friendly but aloof”, and that he didn’t have a particularly close relationship with his grandchildren (whatever that means). It’s generally accepted, though, that Jimmy Carter was the one “nice guy” president in the past 50 years.
I actually think Barack Obama is also fairly non-sociopathic as far as president’s go, although he I think he also has some sort of resentment towards white people.
As far as Dr. James Fallon, a body language expert also diagnoses him as such:
http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2014/02/nonverbal-communication-analysis-no_23.html
the way america really works.
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-wang-says-ivy-league-discriminates-against-asians-2015-5
Getting into a good school wouldn’t matter if employers didn’t value elite credentials. They’re a huge part of the problem.
Seems to me that any given school, if at least adequate, can transfer skills as equally well as any other therefore it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to credit any given school over any other or respect qualification a over qualification b.
They’re looking for evidence of intelligence anyway so why not cut the process short and admit that IQ is legit and hire people with degree-level skills and IQ 120-130+
It’s evidence of much the same intelligence as an elite student, allows for much more parity in the social class of the people you hire, and makes the system much much more efficient.
Getting into a good school wouldn’t matter if employers didn’t value elite credentials. They’re a huge part of the problem.
THANK YOU
Nuanced statistical reasoning is a huge turn on for me. How ’bout it?
Me an’ Peepee
Sittin’ in a tree
Makin’ W-H-O-O-P-E-E
I understand that sounds uncomfortable, but it’s for the children.
I apologize for this, I thought it would be funny.
It was funny. 🙂
I’ve read that if you had the high school credentials to get into an elite school, but decided not to, you will do just as well as those who went.
Got in but decided not to attend, that is.
Whew, I almost did a cyber rape there for a second!
How heritable, would you say, is psychopathy?
Pingback: Is Trump’s psychopathy a *good* thing? | Aeoli Pera
The problem with arguing that people at the top are sociopaths is it comes across as sour grapes…
i think only if one doesn’t also agree that IQ and other virtues are rewarded by higher income and status even in america.
the bigger point is that:
1. sometimes vices are rewarded and sometimes virtues are punished.
2. the “vast majority” of people assume without knowing (that they assume) it…that…
if a certain personality/character trait is rewarded it is ipso facto a virtue.
but this is plainly false and just ideology in its most insidious form…the just world phenomenon.
and a yet subtler aspect of reality and of ideology is that…
one’s rank, status, income, wealth, and all that goes along with that affects one’s behavior in such a way that…
it is actually much easier to be a despicable poor person than a despicable rich person…
that is…
it is harder to be virtuous when the wolf is always at the door, than if one doesn’t even need to work.
in addition to being conservative in economic matters, the american ideology is also characterized by the assumption that the individual is un-affected by his station in life…that he would be “the same person” irrespective of his environment…
AND…
this assumption is not just motivated by hereditism…
it is also motivated by:
1. the un-willingness of people to believe that under different circumstances they themselves would be different people.
2. the denial that there is any such thing as society.
thatcher actually said, “there is no such thing as society.”
2. the “vast majority” of people assume without knowing (that they assume) it…that…
if a certain personality/character trait is rewarded it is ipso facto a virtue.
And of course this doesn’t just apply to economic rewards but also to evolutionary rewards
Since having kids is rewarded by evolution, people assume (especially in HBD land) that reproducing is virtuous. Since racism is considered evil, many are annoyed by the idea that tribalism could ever be rewarded by evolution (see the heated debate over Ethnic Genetic Interests)
People view rewards as the ultimate validation
a strong desire to “succeed” or get rich or climb the corporate ladder or be president should always be a dis-qualification…
but instead is almost invariably a requirement.
maybe gerald ford had no ambition. idk.
but ambition to obtain a certain level of status or wealth or fame…to be some-body…is a vice.
whereas the ambition to accomplish some-thing is a virtue.
and this is why the old feudal system can actually be better than a putative “meritocracy”. a place for everyone and everyone in his place.
because:
1. with few exceptions there are no meritocracies, not even approximations. (and the US is the least meritocratic country in the developed world btw….but at the same time its people believe it’s the most meritocratic.)
2. when an elite claims to be self-made and superior, it feels no responsibility for those who didn’t make it…they are merely suffering from the results of their own vice. everyone gets what he deserves. if you aren’t rich, it’s your own fault. blah, blah, blah,…
there has been at least one randian superman…
namely henry ford…
but apparently his IQ wasn’t that high…
and he was a fanatical anti-semite.
but basically rand’s superman was just a female fantasy.
they don’t exist in the real world.
using peepee’s most loved term there are 4 ways to “adapt”:
1. change who you are. (sociopathy of the first kind.)
2. change who you appear to be. (sociopathy of the second kind.)
3. give up and be a loser.
4. if you’re lucky, find some tolerable “niche” for yourself where you can still achieve some distinction.
PP, you should read The Psychopath Code , it’s a book who talk about psychopathy as an adaptation rather than as a disorder.
The reasons I liked this book are the same who make me enjoy this blog. Things are explain in a very simple & logical way. I am sure you will appreciate it.
You can read it for free here: https://www.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/psychopathcode/details
Thanks, I’ll try to check it out