Psychopaths comprise a small percentile of the population at large (commonly estimated at 1%). These individuals differ from the rest of the population because, research has shown, their brains have a dysfunction.
A small part of the brain called the amygdala is generally-understood to be responsible for forming empathy with others: a person who lacks empathy lacks the emotional understanding of how others feel, and therefore lacks the knowledge of how to react to it properly. It is this "empathy circuit" that makes people behave in a caring and humane manner towards others: if that circuit is "broken" - as it is in psychopaths - then an individual has no compunction (or necessity) to act in a way sympathetic to other people. On the contrary, they will do whatever they need to do to achieve their goals, regardless of the consequences for others.
An individual crime wave?
Psychopathy is a collection of traits and behaviours that are a result of lack of empathy. Much of the research into psychopathy was originally carried out in prisons, mostly because this was the only place where it was possible to find a "stable" population of psychopaths. Research has shown that psychopaths make up a highly-disproportionate percentage of the prison population; this disparity increases even further when you look at violent offenders and serial sex offenders. In other words, psychopaths (who make up only 1% of the population) are responsible for a large part of violent and sexual offences. Furthermore, psychopaths, by the nature of their "disorder" are incapable of learning from their mistakes, and not surprisingly, make up a disproportionate percentage of those that are repeat offenders. So we can see that psychopaths bear a great responsibility for much of the crime that exists in society. And this doesn't even factor in other, more discreet - yet socially extremely-damaging - types of crime (more on that later).
However, most psychopaths are not even in prison. It can be said that only the "unsuccessful" psychopaths are the ones that we actually see in prison. Most serial killers are not psychopaths; however, a disproportionate number of serial killers are psychopaths. What makes the difference between a psychopath being a serial killer (which is in fact, very rare), a violent gang member, a rapist, a serial adulterer, a fraudster, or a boardroom CEO? Circumstance.
Choose your weapon
Robert Hare, the foremost expert on psychopathy, has said that psychopaths exist in all sections of society, and thus bad parenting or an abusive childhood cannot be said to be solely to blame, as some others have argued. Hare suggests that psychopathy is, at least partially, a biological (i.e. genetic) condition. The environment of a "psychopathic child" can play a part in aggravating the onset of the condition, but there are equally - as Hare claims - too many examples of psychopaths from well-adjusted families to say for sure that environment plays a decisive role. While environment is a factor, Hare's thinking suggests it is largely a biological condition.
Regardless of the origins of how a person becomes a psychopath, what is clear that apart from being a disproportionate part of the prison population, in the general population, we know that people ranking high on Hare's "psychopathy checklist" also tend to feature disproportionately in some fields of work.
Psychopaths have low anxiety levels and high risk-taking tendencies, amongst other behaviours, such as manipulation and superficial charm. This ruthlessness and ability to make quick decisions gives them a natural advantage in professions such as business, banking and law, but also other fields such as medicine and even the military and the police - and yes, politics, too. Psychopaths have been shown to have a heightened sense of alertness, and an ability to focus in on a person's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, they are "hard-wired" to be adaptive survivors, and - depending on their individual circumstances - know how to make the most of their "attributes".
This explains why there are a disproportionate numbers of violent and sexual offenders - but very few fraudsters - in prison.
Those psychopaths that have been born at the wrong end of society are most likely to be destined to become petty "career" criminals, gang members or father a string of illegitimate children. However, equally, a disproportionate number of these "low end" psychopaths may be able, through force of circumstances, be able to become highly-successful entrepreneurs: what is often called a "rags-to-riches" millionaire who has "the gift of the gab". These types of individuals were able to use their cunning and ruthlessness in more "pro-active" ways to make themselves financially well-off using legal means, whereas a psychopathic gang member was not.
And then we have what might be called "mid-level" psychopaths. These are usually "socially-adapted" psychopaths that have found some middling way to find an outlet for channeling their attributes: born into an "average" family, they may be successful salesmen or con men (more on these types of psychopaths, and the sales industry in general here). Equally, they may well go into the police force or even the military. In short, they have chosen professions that fit the glove of their personality, without making their lack of empathy seem too obvious or intrusive on their way of life. In some ways, these types of psychopaths are perhaps the most "socially-useful" to society, because they contribute something positive to society, in spite of their other negatives. This is not to say that these people are "well-adjusted" - they may still be capable of violence, ruthlessness, manipulation, and sometimes behave appallingly - but it may be well-concealed so to be less obviously-apparent.
Lastly (and most ominously) are the "high-end" psychopaths. Many of these are people either born into the higher end of society, or by their own high intelligence and cunning, are able to quickly work their way into it. While "low-level" psychopaths may be the ones most likely you'll encounter in prison and responsible for a large degree of "everyday" crime, the "high-end" psychopaths are the ones most likely to defraud businesses, bankrupt corporations, lay off entire workforces, cause environmental disasters, or worse. These are the people who have "the system" wrapped around their finger, so that any amoral acts they do are either ignored, excused, blamed on others (or underlings), or have been already made legal to neutralise the threat to their position. These people aren't in prison because they already have the political and legal system in their pockets.
The most infamous recent example is the financial crisis of 2008, where the elite of the banking system had devised a fraudulent banking model that caused the entire system to collapse. The banking cartel was then able to effectively blackmail governments into "bailing out" the banks without seriously forcing them to change their systems of operation, let alone sending many of them to prison for mass fraud on an epic scale. The modern economic system, which first came to into wide use thirty years ago, is effectively propping-up a system of economic extraction by an elite at the expense of the conditions of the regular workforce. These are conditions where the elite are leeching off the lower half of society in the same manner that psychopaths leech off their targeted victims. With the justification of Ayn Rand's philosophy, neo-liberalism sees social injustice as a "necessary evil"; even a good thing. This is precisely the same logic that psychopaths use to justify their acts. Is that a coincidence?
It is this reason why the gap between the highest and lowest earners has expanded by many times in the last thirty years. In this sense, it is difficult to separate the effects that psychopathy has on crime and on how our economy is governed overall: if the modern "Capitalist" system is ran on the principle of amoral exploitation, then how is it different, morally-speaking, from psychopathy?
When "high-end" psychopaths are in positions of authority the results are far more socially-devastating than a "low-end" psychopath. A low-end psychopath in a town can harm individuals and families through, for example, petty crime and casual violence. A high-end psychopath, by closing down a town's factory, can bring about the social conditions to breed more crime and social deprivation in the whole town.
This is what makes psychopathy a cause of so much of humanity's social problems, from poverty and inequality to crime. Psychopaths are nature's predators, amorally seeking to exploit others for their own advantage. When these individuals gain entry into the field of politics, the result can be truly devastating. History has seen many examples; and in the modern-day, we see many countries around the world that are ran as little more than modern-day feudal states. These nations are ruled by elites that see their populations as little more than resources to exploit, and are the main cause of poverty in the world today: by definition, these elites must lack empathy for those they rule in order to justify how they "govern", breeding further generations "little dictators" for their elites to continue their hereditary exploitation of their populations.
North Korea is a prime example of this, though there are many others.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
The best movie psychopath? The Joker in "The Dark Knight"
The psychopathic character endlessly fascinates the darker side of human nature. While psychopaths in real-life are best to be avoided for a whole host of reasons (more on how to spot a psychopath here), it is the fictional psychopaths, such as those that stand out in movies, that many of us can't get enough of.
Psychopathy is understood as a psychological syndrome, or a series of traits, that exist in a small fraction of the population. The stand-out feature of this collection of traits is a lack of empathy, or understanding of basic human emotions. After that, psychologists would identify the chaotic nature of a psychopathic individual (i.e. instinctive actions lacking in any planning, a lack of any concrete life "goal"), and the cunning and amoral use of manipulation to get what they want, without regard to the consequences for others. In essence, a psychopath has no moral (i.e. empathy) compass, and he will whatever is easiest and convenient to satisfy his needs at that time. There are many traits, but those mentioned are likely to be the most prominent.
An agent of chaos
A feature-length British documentary by Channel Four (called "Psychopath Night") used some experts in the field of crime and psychiatry to look in some depth at clarifying what a "psychopath" exactly is. One of the experts was Kevin Dutton, who described his "mixing-deck" approach to understanding how "psychopathy" may manifest itself throughout a section of human society.
At the same time, the documentary used the experts to analyse what they thought were the most convincing portrayals of the psychopathic character in film. Heath Ledger's playing of "The Joker" was considered best, as explained here (watch from 8.37).
As mentioned by the former FBI expert in the documentary, in the bank robbery scene at the start of the movie, The Joker shows callous duplicity and a complete lack of regard for his cohorts - having them kill each other one-by-one to apparently get more of the money, until there is only The Joker himself remaining. In the same scene, he displays grandiosity in the dramatic and terrifying nature of the bank heist, clearly wanting to make a statement of intent (and which is later demonstrated when he later crashes Bruce Wayne's party to get Harvey Dent). Lastly, in the conversation with the bank manager, he makes it clear how nihilistic is his world-view; he has no moral code, only a belief that what doesn't kill you "makes you...stranger".
Throughout the film, The Joker does whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants: though often this appears to be to cause chaos simply for the sheer hell of it. As he explain to Batman when interrogated, he is not a monster but simply "ahead of the curve". This is a purely amoral, psychopathic perspective of the world; an utterly cynical view of human nature, where he believes that people will turn on each other when the chips are down.
While he targets the main individuals working against the mafia - the judge of the mafia trial, the police commissioner, Harvey Dent, and the mayor - it is also clear that his wider purpose is to cause as much moral chaos in the city as possible. One the last scenes is where he creates his own kind of amoral, real-life social experiment: the ferry scene, where two ferries - one carrying civilians, the other with convicts and prison guards - are told to blow up the other before a deadline, or they would both be blown up.
He blows up a hospital, it seems simply for the sake of it, taking its patients as hostages, and after causing the explosion that disfigured Harvey Dent, in the final scene with Batman, The Joker declares it was his intention to see Harvey Dent, the city's "hero", come down to earth, in order to morally corrupt the city. In the later film, "The Dark Knight Rises", this prophecy finally comes true, when Bane reads out Gordon's speech (more on the psychological comparison between The Joker and Bane here). In the same way, he also brings about the collapse of the public's moral view of Batman himself, when Batman takes the blame for killing Dent and the corrupt police officers. This demonstrates that by the end of the film, although The Joker had "failed" in his main task (the story implies he is after complete criminal control of the city), he had succeeded in destroying Batman as a moral force for good in the public's eyes, and achieved his own kind of "moral" victory even though he would be behind bars.
As a psychological portrait, The Joker fits many of the traits consistent with a psychopath. It is in the hospital scene with Harvey Dent where the Joker makes his remark that he is "an agent of chaos", asking "do I look like the kind of guy with a plan?" This comment is further clarification of the chaotic and impulsive nature of his personality.
Master of Manipulation
As the film progresses, each scene with The Joker clarifies further that his character features strongly manipulative and cunning elements. He apparently seems to offer his services to the mafia - to kill Batman - while at the same time, destroying them as an organisation, one by one, culminating in burning half of their money.
He conspires events to have himself arrested in order to grab the mafia's accountant, Lau, by blowing up the main police station. While under interrogation with Batman in the station, he also tries to manipulate Batman towards his side, by insinuating that Batman is being used by the police, and will be blamed as a villain later (which is indeed what happens at the end of the film). He also succeeds in manipulating Harvey Dent - after causing the explosion that facially disfigured him - to go after the corrupt police who were working with the mafia boss Maroni, diverting the blame away from himself.
The Joker's real purpose, apart from causing as much mayhem as possible, is to ultimately take control of the city, as its chaotic criminal head. From gaining the attention of the mafia by robbing one of their banks, then offering them "his services" to kill Batman, he also succeeds in killing off his main mafia rivals, one by one. While he is supposedly working as an agent of the mafia in targeting the city's great and good, he also clearly has a plan of his own. First by killing Gambol who has already threatened to eliminate him, then, after burning half of the mafia's money, killing The Chechen. Lastly, as mentioned before, he manipulates Harvey Dent into killing the last remaining big mafia boss, Maroni.
In this sense, he Joker easily fulfills the portrait of psychopath as Machiavellian schemer, using the mafia's influence to target the "moral core" of Gotham City, while equally scheming to manipulate Harvey Dent and Batman to for his own ends. The Joker is a criminal mastermind lurking behind a dark facade of amoral nihilism.
In this respect, it is clear that if The Joker were a real human being, he would be a truly terrifying person to behold. While this character is an extreme (and fictitious) example, there exist real-life examples, too. Some of them are in prison (Ian Brady, for example), and others had their notoriety only fully revealed after their death (e.g. Jimmy Savile). However, you do not need to look very far.
In some respects, the personality of The Joker bears some similarity to that of Stalin: certainly, Stalin is a prime example of how a psychopath does what is necessary to get to the top, and what happens when a psychopath rules the largest country in the world.
When psychopaths are in charge, the result is chaos, and terrifying for everyone else: how do you think the financial crisis was possible?
Psychopathy is understood as a psychological syndrome, or a series of traits, that exist in a small fraction of the population. The stand-out feature of this collection of traits is a lack of empathy, or understanding of basic human emotions. After that, psychologists would identify the chaotic nature of a psychopathic individual (i.e. instinctive actions lacking in any planning, a lack of any concrete life "goal"), and the cunning and amoral use of manipulation to get what they want, without regard to the consequences for others. In essence, a psychopath has no moral (i.e. empathy) compass, and he will whatever is easiest and convenient to satisfy his needs at that time. There are many traits, but those mentioned are likely to be the most prominent.
An agent of chaos
A feature-length British documentary by Channel Four (called "Psychopath Night") used some experts in the field of crime and psychiatry to look in some depth at clarifying what a "psychopath" exactly is. One of the experts was Kevin Dutton, who described his "mixing-deck" approach to understanding how "psychopathy" may manifest itself throughout a section of human society.
At the same time, the documentary used the experts to analyse what they thought were the most convincing portrayals of the psychopathic character in film. Heath Ledger's playing of "The Joker" was considered best, as explained here (watch from 8.37).
As mentioned by the former FBI expert in the documentary, in the bank robbery scene at the start of the movie, The Joker shows callous duplicity and a complete lack of regard for his cohorts - having them kill each other one-by-one to apparently get more of the money, until there is only The Joker himself remaining. In the same scene, he displays grandiosity in the dramatic and terrifying nature of the bank heist, clearly wanting to make a statement of intent (and which is later demonstrated when he later crashes Bruce Wayne's party to get Harvey Dent). Lastly, in the conversation with the bank manager, he makes it clear how nihilistic is his world-view; he has no moral code, only a belief that what doesn't kill you "makes you...stranger".
Throughout the film, The Joker does whatever is necessary to achieve what he wants: though often this appears to be to cause chaos simply for the sheer hell of it. As he explain to Batman when interrogated, he is not a monster but simply "ahead of the curve". This is a purely amoral, psychopathic perspective of the world; an utterly cynical view of human nature, where he believes that people will turn on each other when the chips are down.
While he targets the main individuals working against the mafia - the judge of the mafia trial, the police commissioner, Harvey Dent, and the mayor - it is also clear that his wider purpose is to cause as much moral chaos in the city as possible. One the last scenes is where he creates his own kind of amoral, real-life social experiment: the ferry scene, where two ferries - one carrying civilians, the other with convicts and prison guards - are told to blow up the other before a deadline, or they would both be blown up.
He blows up a hospital, it seems simply for the sake of it, taking its patients as hostages, and after causing the explosion that disfigured Harvey Dent, in the final scene with Batman, The Joker declares it was his intention to see Harvey Dent, the city's "hero", come down to earth, in order to morally corrupt the city. In the later film, "The Dark Knight Rises", this prophecy finally comes true, when Bane reads out Gordon's speech (more on the psychological comparison between The Joker and Bane here). In the same way, he also brings about the collapse of the public's moral view of Batman himself, when Batman takes the blame for killing Dent and the corrupt police officers. This demonstrates that by the end of the film, although The Joker had "failed" in his main task (the story implies he is after complete criminal control of the city), he had succeeded in destroying Batman as a moral force for good in the public's eyes, and achieved his own kind of "moral" victory even though he would be behind bars.
As a psychological portrait, The Joker fits many of the traits consistent with a psychopath. It is in the hospital scene with Harvey Dent where the Joker makes his remark that he is "an agent of chaos", asking "do I look like the kind of guy with a plan?" This comment is further clarification of the chaotic and impulsive nature of his personality.
Master of Manipulation
As the film progresses, each scene with The Joker clarifies further that his character features strongly manipulative and cunning elements. He apparently seems to offer his services to the mafia - to kill Batman - while at the same time, destroying them as an organisation, one by one, culminating in burning half of their money.
He conspires events to have himself arrested in order to grab the mafia's accountant, Lau, by blowing up the main police station. While under interrogation with Batman in the station, he also tries to manipulate Batman towards his side, by insinuating that Batman is being used by the police, and will be blamed as a villain later (which is indeed what happens at the end of the film). He also succeeds in manipulating Harvey Dent - after causing the explosion that facially disfigured him - to go after the corrupt police who were working with the mafia boss Maroni, diverting the blame away from himself.
The Joker's real purpose, apart from causing as much mayhem as possible, is to ultimately take control of the city, as its chaotic criminal head. From gaining the attention of the mafia by robbing one of their banks, then offering them "his services" to kill Batman, he also succeeds in killing off his main mafia rivals, one by one. While he is supposedly working as an agent of the mafia in targeting the city's great and good, he also clearly has a plan of his own. First by killing Gambol who has already threatened to eliminate him, then, after burning half of the mafia's money, killing The Chechen. Lastly, as mentioned before, he manipulates Harvey Dent into killing the last remaining big mafia boss, Maroni.
In this sense, he Joker easily fulfills the portrait of psychopath as Machiavellian schemer, using the mafia's influence to target the "moral core" of Gotham City, while equally scheming to manipulate Harvey Dent and Batman to for his own ends. The Joker is a criminal mastermind lurking behind a dark facade of amoral nihilism.
In this respect, it is clear that if The Joker were a real human being, he would be a truly terrifying person to behold. While this character is an extreme (and fictitious) example, there exist real-life examples, too. Some of them are in prison (Ian Brady, for example), and others had their notoriety only fully revealed after their death (e.g. Jimmy Savile). However, you do not need to look very far.
In some respects, the personality of The Joker bears some similarity to that of Stalin: certainly, Stalin is a prime example of how a psychopath does what is necessary to get to the top, and what happens when a psychopath rules the largest country in the world.
When psychopaths are in charge, the result is chaos, and terrifying for everyone else: how do you think the financial crisis was possible?
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Psychopathy, economics and politics: joining the dots, and "Why Nations Fail"
The author recently read the brilliant book "Why Nations Fail", by Daron Acemoglu, and James A. Robinson. This book explains their theory about why some countries are rich and others are poor; and how historically, various countries became rich, became poor, have always been poor, and so on.
Using many historical and contemporary examples, they show how nation-states can be roughly divided into those that are "extractive" and those that are "inclusive". Essentially, an "extractive" society is one where a closed, ruling elite uses its population to "extract" wealth for its own benefit; an "inclusive" society is one where the population as a whole has easy access to institutions, an open legal system, and their human rights are secured. As you might imagine, "extractive" societies are always significantly poorer than "inclusive" ones, though the scale of "extraction" or "inclusion" depends on the specific circumstances of any one nation-state.
This explanation mirrors something I read years ago about why countries are poor: in a word, corruption. As economics (and politics) is about choices, countries are poor because the wealth and power of the country is concentrated in the hands of a closed elite. An elite could choose to invest in innovation and development, but this would come at a risk of creating other wealthy people, who would want to replace them, or at least ask for more say in how things are being run. If the institutions are corrupt, then this inevitably results in government becoming a closed shop. For this reason, nation-states run in this way would never develop economically beyond a certain level: corruption always holds these countries back. Africa is the poorest continent in the globe for this reason, but this form of "institutionalised" corruption has more-or-less existed in Africa for centuries, going back to before when the Portuguese explored the continent five hundred years ago. In the book "Why Nations Fail", it is also concisely explained why North and South America have such different standards of living: again, the question comes down to corruption and exploitation, of one form or another.
Joining the dots: towards a unified theory?
This got me thinking about some of the points I've made elsewhere about the effect human psychology has on economics and politics, and vice versa. This idea of "extractive" societies sounds similar in tone, at a collective level, to the premise that psychopaths are "leeches" on society at large.
Psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the human population, though with a sliding scale of "severity" of the personality disorder, "semi-psychopaths" may also comprise another few per cent. The glaring differential that marks them out from normal human beings is their lack of empathy (i.e. lack of understanding of human emotion, and how to respond appropriately to it). As described in the linked article earlier:
" ... there are people in human society who do not believe that taxes are "the price of civilisation", and do not believe that government should provide collective services. From a psychological point of view, these people appear to have a severe lack of empathy. "
So economic and political institutions may well also have cumulative effect on human psychology, in that a nation-state's institutions (or chronic lack of them) can erode a person's empathy towards society at large. It must also be said that, by definition, a disproportionate number of people in corrupt elites around the world - from North Korea's Kim Jong-Un to the richest man in the world, Mexico's Carlos Slim - would also have an empathy deficit, in order to justify what they do. This also explains why the rich (i.e. in the West) complain about paying taxes for public services they do not use; these people display a lack of empathy towards society, and an anti-social attitude towards their responsibilities. More on this later.
In an article last year, I talked about how the historic "hunter-gatherer" society and its contemporary Capitalist equivalent may well generate an environment that is beneficial towards psychopaths. Intriguingly. the authors of "Why Nations Fail" talk about how the hunter-gatherer society's evolution to a sedentary, farming civilisation can likely have only come about through an act of leadership, bringing about an institutional change. In their book, they talk about the example of the Natufian civilisation around 9000BC in the modern-day Holy Land, which was the first known society to make the change from hunting to an agrarian society.
As has been mentioned in earlier posts, psychopaths are also humanity's natural leaders, so much so that Kevin Dutton, who wrote the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", believes that not all of psychopath's psychological attributes are always bad - sometimes, they are even beneficial. In this way, it can be argued that if the authors of "Why Nations Fail" suggest that it was decisive (and therefore, autocratic) decision of a Natufian leader to bring about the "revolution" to a settled farming, it would have taken a great deal of fearlessness (and ruthless enforcement) to bring about this change. And what better person to do this than a psychopath?
Kevin Dutton talks about psychopaths, for all the damage they can wreak on society, as also acting as the "doers" in society, the ones that are fearless at taking risks. Assuming this to be true, it can be surmised that a disproportionately-large number of individuals responsible for humanity's various advances throughout history were psychopaths. If you look at today's entrepreneurs, it's not hard to recognise in a significant number of them the same attributes - the risk-taking, the fearlessness, the occasional amoral ruthlessness - that we recognise in psychopaths. In this sense, they are society's "winners". But this was not always the case.
Different system, different outcome
Different kinds of societies produce different kinds of social environments. The theory of "extractive" and "inclusive" nation-states links to some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier article: that psychopaths thrive in hunter-gatherer/ Capitalist societies, but struggle to advance in stratified and closed societies. This matches, (with some caveats, which I'll explain shortly) to the "inclusive" and "extractive" societies mentioned in "Why Nations Fail".
In the modern world, the most "inclusive" (i.e. egalitarian and open) nation-states can be found in places like Scandinavia: these are societies where inequality levels are very low and standards of living are very high; this is a result of their high-functioning and well-organised institutions. At the opposite end, the most "extractive" nation-states (i.e. the most corrupt, with the most dysfunctional institutions) can be found in the Third World. Nation-states like the USA and the UK are still very high in terms of institutional organisation, but have significantly higher levels of inequality compared to places like Scandinavia.
Modern laissez-faire Capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal philosophy created by Ayn Rand) engenders a social attitude similar to that found in hunter-gatherer societies, and is probably the best environment for a psychopath to thrive in: this also coincides with the greatest advances in human history. However, endemic to this neo-liberal system is the creation, over time, of a cartel-like structure that has effective control over large segments of economic transactions. This is a natural result of the way "the market" works, when not protected by effective institutions. The creation of this cartel is a fundamental weakness in the system, and also a fundamental problem of what happens when psychopaths rule the roost: they are very good at getting to the top and staying there, doing whatever thy can to preserve their position in society. The creation of these cartels, or "economic elites" are what prevents Capitalist societies from becoming fully inclusive, and explains why psychopaths tend to thrive in them: because fully-inclusive societies are anathema to a psychopath's understanding and interests.
For a psychopath, an "extractive" society of a closed elite creates a glass barrier he finds difficult to pass; conversely, a fully-inclusive society creates institutions and rights that prevent a psychopath from amorally securing his position at the top for perpetuity. He might get to the top for a while, but "the system" will quickly root out and cast down any amoral usurpers. In a Capitalist system, this is less likely to happen while also giving him more opportunities to amorally profit from others, and would thus be a psychopath's preferred social environment to advance in.
There are psychopaths in any society, "extractive" as well as "inclusive". When psychopaths rule the roost, the result is chaos, regardless of the social make-up of the system. The question is: how to make psychopaths "work", so that the system gets the best out of them, without breaking the system.
Using many historical and contemporary examples, they show how nation-states can be roughly divided into those that are "extractive" and those that are "inclusive". Essentially, an "extractive" society is one where a closed, ruling elite uses its population to "extract" wealth for its own benefit; an "inclusive" society is one where the population as a whole has easy access to institutions, an open legal system, and their human rights are secured. As you might imagine, "extractive" societies are always significantly poorer than "inclusive" ones, though the scale of "extraction" or "inclusion" depends on the specific circumstances of any one nation-state.
This explanation mirrors something I read years ago about why countries are poor: in a word, corruption. As economics (and politics) is about choices, countries are poor because the wealth and power of the country is concentrated in the hands of a closed elite. An elite could choose to invest in innovation and development, but this would come at a risk of creating other wealthy people, who would want to replace them, or at least ask for more say in how things are being run. If the institutions are corrupt, then this inevitably results in government becoming a closed shop. For this reason, nation-states run in this way would never develop economically beyond a certain level: corruption always holds these countries back. Africa is the poorest continent in the globe for this reason, but this form of "institutionalised" corruption has more-or-less existed in Africa for centuries, going back to before when the Portuguese explored the continent five hundred years ago. In the book "Why Nations Fail", it is also concisely explained why North and South America have such different standards of living: again, the question comes down to corruption and exploitation, of one form or another.
Joining the dots: towards a unified theory?
This got me thinking about some of the points I've made elsewhere about the effect human psychology has on economics and politics, and vice versa. This idea of "extractive" societies sounds similar in tone, at a collective level, to the premise that psychopaths are "leeches" on society at large.
Psychopaths make up roughly 1% of the human population, though with a sliding scale of "severity" of the personality disorder, "semi-psychopaths" may also comprise another few per cent. The glaring differential that marks them out from normal human beings is their lack of empathy (i.e. lack of understanding of human emotion, and how to respond appropriately to it). As described in the linked article earlier:
" ... there are people in human society who do not believe that taxes are "the price of civilisation", and do not believe that government should provide collective services. From a psychological point of view, these people appear to have a severe lack of empathy. "
So economic and political institutions may well also have cumulative effect on human psychology, in that a nation-state's institutions (or chronic lack of them) can erode a person's empathy towards society at large. It must also be said that, by definition, a disproportionate number of people in corrupt elites around the world - from North Korea's Kim Jong-Un to the richest man in the world, Mexico's Carlos Slim - would also have an empathy deficit, in order to justify what they do. This also explains why the rich (i.e. in the West) complain about paying taxes for public services they do not use; these people display a lack of empathy towards society, and an anti-social attitude towards their responsibilities. More on this later.
In an article last year, I talked about how the historic "hunter-gatherer" society and its contemporary Capitalist equivalent may well generate an environment that is beneficial towards psychopaths. Intriguingly. the authors of "Why Nations Fail" talk about how the hunter-gatherer society's evolution to a sedentary, farming civilisation can likely have only come about through an act of leadership, bringing about an institutional change. In their book, they talk about the example of the Natufian civilisation around 9000BC in the modern-day Holy Land, which was the first known society to make the change from hunting to an agrarian society.
As has been mentioned in earlier posts, psychopaths are also humanity's natural leaders, so much so that Kevin Dutton, who wrote the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", believes that not all of psychopath's psychological attributes are always bad - sometimes, they are even beneficial. In this way, it can be argued that if the authors of "Why Nations Fail" suggest that it was decisive (and therefore, autocratic) decision of a Natufian leader to bring about the "revolution" to a settled farming, it would have taken a great deal of fearlessness (and ruthless enforcement) to bring about this change. And what better person to do this than a psychopath?
Kevin Dutton talks about psychopaths, for all the damage they can wreak on society, as also acting as the "doers" in society, the ones that are fearless at taking risks. Assuming this to be true, it can be surmised that a disproportionately-large number of individuals responsible for humanity's various advances throughout history were psychopaths. If you look at today's entrepreneurs, it's not hard to recognise in a significant number of them the same attributes - the risk-taking, the fearlessness, the occasional amoral ruthlessness - that we recognise in psychopaths. In this sense, they are society's "winners". But this was not always the case.
Different system, different outcome
Different kinds of societies produce different kinds of social environments. The theory of "extractive" and "inclusive" nation-states links to some of the ideas mentioned in an earlier article: that psychopaths thrive in hunter-gatherer/ Capitalist societies, but struggle to advance in stratified and closed societies. This matches, (with some caveats, which I'll explain shortly) to the "inclusive" and "extractive" societies mentioned in "Why Nations Fail".
In the modern world, the most "inclusive" (i.e. egalitarian and open) nation-states can be found in places like Scandinavia: these are societies where inequality levels are very low and standards of living are very high; this is a result of their high-functioning and well-organised institutions. At the opposite end, the most "extractive" nation-states (i.e. the most corrupt, with the most dysfunctional institutions) can be found in the Third World. Nation-states like the USA and the UK are still very high in terms of institutional organisation, but have significantly higher levels of inequality compared to places like Scandinavia.
Modern laissez-faire Capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal philosophy created by Ayn Rand) engenders a social attitude similar to that found in hunter-gatherer societies, and is probably the best environment for a psychopath to thrive in: this also coincides with the greatest advances in human history. However, endemic to this neo-liberal system is the creation, over time, of a cartel-like structure that has effective control over large segments of economic transactions. This is a natural result of the way "the market" works, when not protected by effective institutions. The creation of this cartel is a fundamental weakness in the system, and also a fundamental problem of what happens when psychopaths rule the roost: they are very good at getting to the top and staying there, doing whatever thy can to preserve their position in society. The creation of these cartels, or "economic elites" are what prevents Capitalist societies from becoming fully inclusive, and explains why psychopaths tend to thrive in them: because fully-inclusive societies are anathema to a psychopath's understanding and interests.
For a psychopath, an "extractive" society of a closed elite creates a glass barrier he finds difficult to pass; conversely, a fully-inclusive society creates institutions and rights that prevent a psychopath from amorally securing his position at the top for perpetuity. He might get to the top for a while, but "the system" will quickly root out and cast down any amoral usurpers. In a Capitalist system, this is less likely to happen while also giving him more opportunities to amorally profit from others, and would thus be a psychopath's preferred social environment to advance in.
There are psychopaths in any society, "extractive" as well as "inclusive". When psychopaths rule the roost, the result is chaos, regardless of the social make-up of the system. The question is: how to make psychopaths "work", so that the system gets the best out of them, without breaking the system.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
George Osborne's 2014 Autumn Statement: the madman at Number 11?
There's a fair body of evidence to suggest that George Osborne is the worst chancellor in living memory: both as a chancellor, and as a human being.
There was a famous phrase that came out of the Labour government when Gordon Brown was chancellor: as his enemies in the Labour Party liked to say to those who'd listen "remember, the chancellor is mad".
Brown can be blamed for creating a unsustainable economic model that contributed to the UK being over-exposed financially when 2008 hit, but for his mistakes as a chancellor, it was clear that he also has a very large design towards social justice. He created measures such as working families tax credit, and channeled money into the NHS and other social programmes.
He may not always have been an obviously likeable person (and even less so during his time as PM), but it was evident that his heart was in the right place. Listening to his speeches, especially recently in the Scottish referendum, and there is an unmistakable humanity to his words. The tragedy is that never really showed when it needed to matter, when he was Prime Minister.
A calculator and a puppet master?
George Osborne, on the other hand, has less of the economic acumen of Brown, but makes up for it in devious, political cunning (which he doesn't seem to bother to hide). He has replaced Brown's clear sense of social justice, with a clear sense that George Osborne is only pretending to understand how ordinary people live their lives, and a sneering contempt for his enemies.
In this sense, Osborne appears as a pure, amoral political machine, with every calculation and decision based around how it can be made to benefit his agenda.
In some ways, Osborne and Cameron are the ideal political match: Cameron appears as the self-assured (if not terribly cerebral), statesman-like actor-cum-salesman who "does human" quite convincingly (more on Cameron's personality here); Osborne, on the other hand, is the real political calculator and the real "power behind the throne", who doesn't deign to stoop to Cameron's efforts of pretending to be something he isn't - Osborne is as he is, and seems very comfortable with it. It is Osborne's vision that the country is being subjected to, not Cameron's; Cameron simply understands the goal and acquiesces.
It has been said that Osborne rarely does press conferences; unlike the Prime Minister, who can't get enough of them. While it would be too flattering to compare Cameron and Osborne in the same light as Blair and Brown, it would be similarly too condescending to compare them to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The truth may lie somewhere psychologically in the middle.
Osborne's performances in parliament (as seen in the Autumn Statement) can be psychologically-painful to watch, as he appears to revel in playing the part of a pantomime villain, verbally attacking his enemies with sneering snide remarks and cutting put-downs. As a man clearly happy in his own skin, he doesn't feel the need to pretend to be nice for the sake of it. These types of behaviour alone tell us much about George Osborne's potential psychological make-up (it would be awful to be his psychiatrist...).
Austerity for the sake of austerity?
So much for George Osborne, the human being. As a chancellor, he has been an almost complete failure; in fact, making the economic situation worse in the long-run rather than better. He would be the first to blame it on inheriting "Labour's economic mess" (more on that old chestnut here), but the bare truth is that he simply doesn't understand how the macro economy works. If he did, then he would understand why the masses of low-paid, low-skill jobs that are filling the economy are the reason for the low tax revenues, which is also one reason why the deficit keeps on going up. You can cut spending as much as you like, but if taxes are declining also, the result will still be zero. In other words, you are back to square one, except that now people are on average poorer than before. It looks like the Conservatives' economic plan doesn't understand this basic truth, along with some others. Their idea of having a "low-tax, low-spend" economy looks idiotic, if not economically insane, in the contemporary economic climate. It is a recipe for self-inflicted masochism, as the countries in the Eurozone are finding out.
Osborne's plan is simply "austerity, austerity, austerity". Austerity until kingdom come! While back in 2010 "the plan" was envisaged to last for only one parliament, it will now last for two. And the majority of the cuts haven't happened yet. Now that Osborne has successfully twisted Labour into accepting much of Osborne's plan, what is there left to vote for in 2015, if you vote for the three main parties?
What is the point of austerity? It was said by former Downing Street advisor, Steve Hilton, that by the end of this parliament "everything must have changed". The question is: why? George Osborne has now cornered the three main parties into largely accepting austerity (the honourable exception being the Greens, while Ukip want even more stringent austerity than Osborne). But what is austerity for?
As the economic evidence shows, "austerity" fails at its basic aim of getting the national finances in order, and in any case, it's ludicrous to think of the national finances in the same way as, say, household finances. You cannot take micro-economic policy and apply it to macro-economics - this has been the ultimate failure of Thatcherite economics, with the deregulation of the financial market happening at the same time as allowing the manufacturing industry to collapse thirty years ago. While a strong pound is great for the financial markets, it spells disaster for exports. That's why the UK exports so little now, and has a bloated, (and with "too big to fail" banks, a effectively state-subsidised) banking sector.
The UK economy now subsides on finance on one hand and a mass of low-paid, low-skill jobs on the other. Engineering and other skilled industries are the exception to the rule. This is the economy that Osborne now champions.
After the Second World War, Britain faced years of austerity due to the bankruptcy of the empire. And in spite of all that, the Labour government still created the NHS and the modern welfare state. These days, Osborne's plan is a second dose of austerity after a world financial crisis, with the effect of degrading the welfare state and the NHS to minimal levels, and levels of state spending lower than before the welfare state was created. In other words, in a very real sense, the UK is going backwards, not forwards.
Is this Osborne's "vision" for the future?
The only conclusion to reach is that "austerity" is Osborne's policy because he ideologically believes in a smaller state: but not for the sake of improving the welfare of society (as austerity not only doesn't work as a social incentive, it also doesn't work to reduce the national deficit, as we have seen with its negative effect on tax receipts).
No, Osborne's vision, like that of Iain Duncan Smith, can only be an effect of his lack of empathy towards society at large. He fails to understand how people cannot be able to get jobs that pay well, and has little sympathy for the worse-off. Why should the rich pay for the "idle" poor? Why should the rich have to give money to people they have no affinity for?
This is the politics of real "class war" - and the rich are winning.
There was a famous phrase that came out of the Labour government when Gordon Brown was chancellor: as his enemies in the Labour Party liked to say to those who'd listen "remember, the chancellor is mad".
Brown can be blamed for creating a unsustainable economic model that contributed to the UK being over-exposed financially when 2008 hit, but for his mistakes as a chancellor, it was clear that he also has a very large design towards social justice. He created measures such as working families tax credit, and channeled money into the NHS and other social programmes.
He may not always have been an obviously likeable person (and even less so during his time as PM), but it was evident that his heart was in the right place. Listening to his speeches, especially recently in the Scottish referendum, and there is an unmistakable humanity to his words. The tragedy is that never really showed when it needed to matter, when he was Prime Minister.
A calculator and a puppet master?
George Osborne, on the other hand, has less of the economic acumen of Brown, but makes up for it in devious, political cunning (which he doesn't seem to bother to hide). He has replaced Brown's clear sense of social justice, with a clear sense that George Osborne is only pretending to understand how ordinary people live their lives, and a sneering contempt for his enemies.
In this sense, Osborne appears as a pure, amoral political machine, with every calculation and decision based around how it can be made to benefit his agenda.
In some ways, Osborne and Cameron are the ideal political match: Cameron appears as the self-assured (if not terribly cerebral), statesman-like actor-cum-salesman who "does human" quite convincingly (more on Cameron's personality here); Osborne, on the other hand, is the real political calculator and the real "power behind the throne", who doesn't deign to stoop to Cameron's efforts of pretending to be something he isn't - Osborne is as he is, and seems very comfortable with it. It is Osborne's vision that the country is being subjected to, not Cameron's; Cameron simply understands the goal and acquiesces.
It has been said that Osborne rarely does press conferences; unlike the Prime Minister, who can't get enough of them. While it would be too flattering to compare Cameron and Osborne in the same light as Blair and Brown, it would be similarly too condescending to compare them to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. The truth may lie somewhere psychologically in the middle.
Osborne's performances in parliament (as seen in the Autumn Statement) can be psychologically-painful to watch, as he appears to revel in playing the part of a pantomime villain, verbally attacking his enemies with sneering snide remarks and cutting put-downs. As a man clearly happy in his own skin, he doesn't feel the need to pretend to be nice for the sake of it. These types of behaviour alone tell us much about George Osborne's potential psychological make-up (it would be awful to be his psychiatrist...).
Austerity for the sake of austerity?
So much for George Osborne, the human being. As a chancellor, he has been an almost complete failure; in fact, making the economic situation worse in the long-run rather than better. He would be the first to blame it on inheriting "Labour's economic mess" (more on that old chestnut here), but the bare truth is that he simply doesn't understand how the macro economy works. If he did, then he would understand why the masses of low-paid, low-skill jobs that are filling the economy are the reason for the low tax revenues, which is also one reason why the deficit keeps on going up. You can cut spending as much as you like, but if taxes are declining also, the result will still be zero. In other words, you are back to square one, except that now people are on average poorer than before. It looks like the Conservatives' economic plan doesn't understand this basic truth, along with some others. Their idea of having a "low-tax, low-spend" economy looks idiotic, if not economically insane, in the contemporary economic climate. It is a recipe for self-inflicted masochism, as the countries in the Eurozone are finding out.
Osborne's plan is simply "austerity, austerity, austerity". Austerity until kingdom come! While back in 2010 "the plan" was envisaged to last for only one parliament, it will now last for two. And the majority of the cuts haven't happened yet. Now that Osborne has successfully twisted Labour into accepting much of Osborne's plan, what is there left to vote for in 2015, if you vote for the three main parties?
What is the point of austerity? It was said by former Downing Street advisor, Steve Hilton, that by the end of this parliament "everything must have changed". The question is: why? George Osborne has now cornered the three main parties into largely accepting austerity (the honourable exception being the Greens, while Ukip want even more stringent austerity than Osborne). But what is austerity for?
As the economic evidence shows, "austerity" fails at its basic aim of getting the national finances in order, and in any case, it's ludicrous to think of the national finances in the same way as, say, household finances. You cannot take micro-economic policy and apply it to macro-economics - this has been the ultimate failure of Thatcherite economics, with the deregulation of the financial market happening at the same time as allowing the manufacturing industry to collapse thirty years ago. While a strong pound is great for the financial markets, it spells disaster for exports. That's why the UK exports so little now, and has a bloated, (and with "too big to fail" banks, a effectively state-subsidised) banking sector.
The UK economy now subsides on finance on one hand and a mass of low-paid, low-skill jobs on the other. Engineering and other skilled industries are the exception to the rule. This is the economy that Osborne now champions.
After the Second World War, Britain faced years of austerity due to the bankruptcy of the empire. And in spite of all that, the Labour government still created the NHS and the modern welfare state. These days, Osborne's plan is a second dose of austerity after a world financial crisis, with the effect of degrading the welfare state and the NHS to minimal levels, and levels of state spending lower than before the welfare state was created. In other words, in a very real sense, the UK is going backwards, not forwards.
Is this Osborne's "vision" for the future?
The only conclusion to reach is that "austerity" is Osborne's policy because he ideologically believes in a smaller state: but not for the sake of improving the welfare of society (as austerity not only doesn't work as a social incentive, it also doesn't work to reduce the national deficit, as we have seen with its negative effect on tax receipts).
No, Osborne's vision, like that of Iain Duncan Smith, can only be an effect of his lack of empathy towards society at large. He fails to understand how people cannot be able to get jobs that pay well, and has little sympathy for the worse-off. Why should the rich pay for the "idle" poor? Why should the rich have to give money to people they have no affinity for?
This is the politics of real "class war" - and the rich are winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)