Psychopathy and crime: from the boardroom to the sink estate. Linking crime, poverty, economics and government.

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.

"The Wisdom Of Psychopaths", and why psychopaths don't understand "love"

I wrote an article earlier on this year about the possible evolutionary aspects to psychopathy; the main point being that psychopathy may well have its roots in the hunter-gather instinct in humanity, and that, as a fractional percentile of the overall population, psychopaths, for all their flaws, serve an important function.

Psychopaths may be sexual predators and cynical manipulators, but the author of a recent book ("The Wisdom Of Psychopaths"), Kevin Dutton, makes some excellent points towards a more nuanced understanding of the "disorder".

Dutton's analysis of psychopathy comes from the angle that many of the attributes seen in psychopaths are actually positive for society overall: leadership skills, fearlessness, quick thinking, and heightened perception, for example.
These attributes in isolation allow "socially-adaptive psychopaths" to become the heroes of society: positions of authority and respect like soldiers, policemen, doctors, firemen, and so on. These are people who are drawn to danger like mosquitoes to a flame, and are able to thrive on it, whereas other people would be unable to function, paralysed by fear. They are naturally endowed with the kind of personality attributes that makes them uniquely suitable to roles that require a cool, hard-headed and fast response to a situation. These are the people who are able to make the tough calls necessary that can saves lives.

A "mixing deck" approach

The main thing to consider is that "psychopathy", as Dutton explains, can be seen as a "mixing deck" of a variety of personality attributes. Like when looking at the "Hare Psychopath Checklist", a psychopath doesn't need to have all the attributes fully to qualify; he simply needs to have some combination of these attributes. So a "socially-adaptive psychopath" has the fearlessness and leadership aspects of psychopathy, but not the more anti-social (and obviously destructive) aspects of the disorder. As Dutton points out, it is the more anti-social and less intelligent psychopaths that are the ones you find in prison. So psychopaths can be either heroes or villains (or both!).

And again, "psychopathy" is more a matter of degree. While Hare's psychopathy test says that 30 out of 40 on the list is the "magic number", but it's easier to see the whole thing as a sliding scale of degree. While the average person scores very low on the checklist, the higher up the score, the lower the percentile of the population. So there may still be, say, five or ten percent of the population that could be considered "semi-psychopaths", who might "achieve" a score of more than twenty. Not high enough to alarming, but still considerably higher that average and possibly indicative of anti-social (and criminal) behaviour.

The "love" of the predator

Gong back to the evolutionary explanation, psychopaths therefore have the attributes that make them ideal as hunters.

In many ways, their psychology is that of a hunter. As Dutton mentions, psychopaths have a heightened sense of perception (as successfully shown in psychological experiments). This allows them to spot weakness in "prey": if a person has a low self-esteem, or if a person feels nervous, psychopaths have a heightened perception for the visual signals (body language) that suggest this. A "socially-adapted" psychopath may find a use for this skill as a policeman to spot guilt in suspects, for example; an anti-social psychopath will use this skill to prey on and exploit the vulnerable in society as a con man, for example.

In the modern age, Capitalism has allowed psychopaths an ideal "playground" to flex their muscles and make use of their "skills". Modern globalisation has given psychopaths more freedom than ever before, with the added advantage that their psychology closely matches that of the "pure Capitalist". This explains why psychopaths are disproportionately represented in the board room, and why top companies see them more as an asset than a liability. In this way, modern-day Capitalism is simply an updated version of "the hunt".

The lack of emotions prevalent in psychopaths also brings me on to another aspect of evolution. If psychopaths are incapable of "love", why is "love" so important to humanity?
"Love" is generally equated with empathy and caring for others (which pure psychopaths are biologically incapable of feeling). From a biological point of view, personal relationships may also be nature's way of ensuring the continuation of the species.

"Love" is one thing that separates humans from animals. Animals have sex for procreation, but typically in animals, mothers force their offspring to fend for themselves after a short period. For animals, sex is a purely physical, impulsive act, resulting in short-term empathy between the male and female, and passed on to their offspring for a short time. This can be seen from watching any wildlife documentary about lions, for example.

Humans' brains are designed differently, and are more complex. Consequently, social relationships and sex is more nuanced. We've all experienced "infatuation", and this is generally a typical part of the relationship process. It has been said that emotional "love" fades away in a relationship over time, to be replaced by something more like overall empathy for the partner. There may also be an evolutionary explanation for this, too.

While psychopaths are society's hunters and predators, a more scientific explanation for "infatuation" is that the hormones released at this early stage of the relationship are designed to encourage sex (i.e. procreation). A more scientific use for this in nature is that it ensures that a child is born before emotional "love" (mutual infatuation) fades; the child then acts as a further emotional bond between partners when the partners' mutual infatuation is replaced by a more general respect and empathy for each other and their child (or children).
This also ensures that the child grows up in a healthy parental environment, which is necessary given the long period of human upbringing.

In this way, nature ensures that the species continues.

Psychopaths may also have a sexual role in nature (evolution), too, given that nature needs hunters, leaders, predators and survival skills.
Psychopaths are also nature's survivors, for all their flaws.

Psychopathy, Capitalism and evolution: the triumph of the hunter instinct

I've written before about the main aspects of psychopathy, and its effects on the human condition. As a psychological syndrome, psychopathy occurs due to a combination of hereditary and environmental factors, and affects a small percentage of the population.

These are the bare facts, but a more exact calculation of the extent of psychopathy in the general population is near impossible, so even these facts are disputable. The vast majority of known (i.e. medically diagnosed) psychopaths are convicted criminals, since diagnosis usually only possible after a person has been convicted of a crime, and shows some signs of psychopathic "behaviour". As no "self-aware" but formally non-diagnosed psychopath would ever voluntary submit himself to clinical testing, this is what makes it so difficult to measure psychopathy's extent across humanity.
Not only is there the problem of "psychopaths in hiding"; there is also the problem that many psychopaths are able to successfully mask their "true nature" from the rest of society. Furthermore, psychopathy is tested by a scale -  the generally-used "Hare Checklist" is the most reliable method to date; it is more a question to what extent a person is psychopathic, not whether they are or are not.

Hunters versus farmers

In this way, psychopathy has probably existed in humanity since at least prehistoric times. Psychopaths are humanity's "predators", so were therefore likely to have prospered in the nomadic hunter-gatherer societies that existed before farming and agriculture brought about settlements and "civilisation" in the formal sense  - city life. Not only that, but psychopaths are by nature somewhat restless and always looking for new challenges, so would have felt at home in the "adventure" of nomadic hunter-gatherer society.

Thinking back to a concrete example, the wars between the ancient Germanic tribes and the Roman Empire can be called "clash of civilisations" - albeit, where Rome was a city-dwelling civilisation, and the ancient Germans were more faithful to the "hunter-gatherer" society that more closely aligns with the traits of a psychopath. The tribe of Atilla the Hun also fit into the nomad, hunter-gatherer society, as did the migrating Turkic tribes just over a thousand years ago, and most famously, that of Genghis Khan and his Mongol successors. For the Huns, the Turks and the Mongols, the horse was an integral part of their society, symbolising their nomadic instincts, even if their cultures became integrated into those absorbed into their larger empires. The rituals of the hunt and the ethic of total warfare (that the Mongols were most famous for) was what made these three tribes equally feared and respected by their more "civilised" rivals. Before the "Pax Americana" of the modern day, its closest equivalent of a "world empire" was the "Pax Mongolica", which spread across most of Eurasia like a human plague, decimating any populations that resisted.
But for all its seemingly-barbaric (psychopathic?) flaws, the "Pax Mongolica" was an extremely efficient political structure; in ways that a modern-day multinational company would probably recognise. In spite of its enormous scope, communications across the Eurasian landmass became more efficient than they had ever been until the modern era. Peace and trade flourished within the empire itself. The "empire" was divided up into spheres of influence, and ruled accordingly, in much the same way that a modern multinational has regional branches. In other words, the "Pax Mongolica" was brutally-efficient: it was unflinchingly brutal when it was necessary to be; but it was also very efficient at leadership and organisation.

The psychopath as Capitalist predator

The (psychopathic) example of the "Pax Mongolica" is a demonstration of medieval power politics. But the success of the "hunter-gatherer" model of the Mongols was unusual compared to most other medieval societies, which were almost always ruled as agriculture-based societies ruled through a system of serfdom; a poor environment for psychopaths. Unless a psychopath found a niche to use his talents or a way to gain access to power (e.g. through military glory or ecclesiastical advancement), he was doomed to a (short) life of frustration. Most medieval societies tended to be socially and economically static, where movement (and therefore trade and socio-economic independence and entrepreneurial thought) was very difficult.
These deeply fixed and hierarchical societies were socially-geared to suppress the environmental factors that are understood to encourage psychopathy today. Instead, those at the apex of the social hierarchy may well have tended more towards aspects of psychopathic behaviour than otherwise due to its dysfunctional and self-enclosed nature. A modern-day comparison would be the regime of North Korea.

Capitalism in its rudimentary form began to flourish in the mercantile empire of Venice, which reached its zenith at around the same time as the Mongols. What Capitalism shares with the mentality of the hunter-gatherer is the instinct for self-advancement and self-preservation, and a natural curiosity for the next challenge or opportunity. Both Capitalism and the hunter-gather society are inherently anarchic, and reward behaviour that would elsewhere be seen as cold-blooded and selfish, which fits the psychology of the psychopath. The brutal efficiency of the Mongol Empire also had the upside that it served as a conduit for Far Eastern innovations and trade to Europe, and vice versa. So the Capitalist embryo that was formed from the likes of the mercantile Venetian Republic, also provided the ideal environment for psychopaths to flourish. 

I've spoken before about the links between psychopathy and the mindset of Capitalism. But it is also evident that many of the aspects of the renaissance were at least an indirect result of factors such as trade, exchanging ideas, and independent thought and creativity. And psychopaths in such a social situation are hard-wired to excel, having all the natural attributes necessary. In other words, while in hunter-gatherer societies, psychopaths would become the natural leaders, in proto-Capitalist societies like the Venetian Republic and its neighbours, psychopaths would have the natural attributes to become the most successful entrepreneurs and merchants. In other words, Capitalism replaced the function of hunting in human society, allowing psychopaths to successfully adapt to the situation.

As psychopaths are hard-wired with all the attributes that are an advantage in hunting and war-like societies, this also gives them some added social attributes in regard to the opposite sex. Psychopathy may be considered more of a genetic aberration, but natural selection and the role in society of the hunter-Capitalist (predator) therefore makes psychopathy more likely to spread over generations. This explains the potentially massive under-measuring of the true scale of the psychopathic condition in society. It also explains a lot about why globalisation works the way it does.

When people talk about "Social Darwinism", the reality is that this model of Capitalism as envisaged by modern-day Neo-liberals is ideally-suited for psychopaths. In an almost literal dog-eat-dog society, because psychopaths are amoral, sexually-promiscuous, adaptable, self-confident and guiltless, they are capable of almost anything; unfortunately, this also means whenever psychopaths gain positions of power, the result is chaos for everyone else.

Then again, there are some cultures for which psychopathy becomes almost a prerequisite for survival.

Inside the mind of a psychopath: how psychopaths think

The most commonly-accepted method of identifying psychopathy is Hare's Psychopathy "checklist", which uses a twenty-point marker to evaluate to what extent someone is a psychopath. The maximum score is forty, but someone with a score of more than thirty is considered a psychopath, while anyone with a score of more than twenty may be considered a "semi-psychopath": potentially dangerous to be around socially, but not necessarily a risk to your personal safety.
As a general rule, psychopathy is thought to exist between one and five percent of the male population, and around one percent of the female population. Psychopathy is generally understood to be a combination of behaviours ("markers", as listed below), usually seen as a combination of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and Anti-Social Behaviour Disorder (ASPD). As an aside, adoptees are also disproportionately-likely to "suffer from" psychopathy, as I wrote about a few months back.
As a reminder, the main behavioural "markers" are:

• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative
• Lack of remorse or guilt

• Emotionally shallow
• Callous/lack of empathy
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsiveness
• Irresponsibility
• Poor behavioral controls

But what does the world look like to a psychopath?

In some ways it's easier to consider psychopaths almost a different species, rather than as human beings in the conventional sense. Psychopaths are far more like "human predators" than human beings.

As a "human predator", they see the world as a jungle of predators and prey; where victims are there to be used for the psychopath's own purposes, and rival "predators" are quickly assessed as either a challenge to be defeated (as a boost to their own deeply-narcissitic ego), or one to be avoided. The assessment of risk, however, depends on the intelligence of the individual psychopath.

First of all, they have no sense of morality in the human sense; for them, there is no "right and wrong", only what is convenient for them. Brain scans comparing psychopaths and normal people have explained medically why this is: the front part of their brain (which deals with morality) is less active than a normal person, so the moral concept is simply not there. They can justify any of their actions, regardless of the consequences, and never feel "guilty" about anything, because for them, it is always someone else's fault. In their own eyes, they are faultless: if anything goes wrong in their lives, there is always someone else to blame. 

Likewise, psychopaths do not recognise the concept of "lying" or "truth" - they simply say whatever is convenient at the time, in order to resolve a situation to their greatest benefit. Similarly, when their lies get caught out in front of them, they can further invent the most ingenious fabrications to cover up the inconsistency, sending their sane listeners into impossible logical contortions trying to keep up. Some politicians can be like that, as I've said before.   

(A longer discussion of what attracts psychopaths to politics can be found here.)

Psychopaths therefore are capable of appallingly irresponsible or cold-blooded behaviour - theoretically, even murder - and be able to convince themselves that it was the victim's (or someone's else's, or "society's") fault. Furthermore, they will likely justify the action by claiming that the victim "deserved it"; alternatively, in the case of fraud or some other dishonest act, they would even believe that the victim would benefit psychologically from a "harsh lesson", in order to make the victim a stronger person. 
The only reason for behaving in a socially-acceptable way would be for the sake of convenience: avoiding crime not because it is morally wrong, but because it is potentially risky or inconvenient. But that judgement depends on how smart and cunning the psychopath is; a psychopath can as easily find a justification for the most appalling crimes (like the "Moors Murderer" Ian Brady, or as a political leader, such as Joseph Stalin); then again, he might appear to behave normally in the short-term for the sake of a longer-term goal, for example. Then again, they may be able to find a way to appear socially-normal, in order to mask over their darker habits, such as infamous celebrity "philanthropist" Jimmy Savile.

Psychopaths view the world therefore in a deeply cynical, distrustful and self-interested way. As cynics of human nature, altruism is mistrusted; a psychopath may even mock such behaviour as foolish, and something to be taken advantage of. Humanity is a resource to be milked; individual humans to be used and discarded of when no longer useful. How people fit into a psychopath's world depends on how long the psychopath wishes to use them; if a person is needed for a longer-term goal, they may be indulged in order for the psychopath to reach his longer-term goal. This is how psychopaths view other humans. 

(For all these reasons, this is why psychopaths make up a disproportionately-large segment of criminals  - Robert Hare even thinks psychopaths may well be responsible for up to half of all crime; and it thus can be argued are also responsible for much of what is wrong with human society, and even including such issues as poverty and world inequality, when you consider how a disproportionate segment of managers and key decision-makers are psychopaths. While very few psychopaths are serial killers, many serial killers and violent criminals are psychopaths)

As all actions are guided by an amoral sense of purpose, and nothing is ever seen as their fault, many psychopaths are usually incapable of learning from their mistakes and crimes. Some of them may be repeat offenders or serial con artists, for example, having served years in prison, yet still unable to break the cycle of behaviour, seeing themselves as victims of an unforgiving society rather than the cause of their own misfortune, and therefore justified in trying to take whatever they want from it. 

Alternatively, others may be irresponsible businessmen, deep in debt after repeated business failures, and will seek to drag in others into their orbit in order to milk them for what they can get, feeling entitled to the charity from others.

So when not acting as out-and-out predators, psychopaths are like vampires or parasites, using their permanent sense of entitlement to suck others dry; either financially, psychologically, or both.

It follows from this that psychopaths are driven more than anything by control and power. They will use their cunning and charm to manipulate those around them for whatever ends meet their purpose. A psychopath is therefore naturally-talented as a career-climber; creating conflict between two (more talented) rivals, while at the same time currying favour with the boss in order to gain a promotion. Machiavellian behaviour is second nature to a psychopath, having the multiple effect of benefiting their situation, and providing a sadistic boost to their ego as they enjoy seeing the results of their schemes.

So a psychopath's life is the predatory pursuit of amoral self-advancement, at the expense of everyone else. 

The psychopath's emotional desert

Apart from being amoral, psychopaths are also emotionally arid. Their general emotional state is blank, because they are usually incapable of feeling "real" deep, human emotions. More likely, they will find "normal" human emotions puzzling or annoying - emotional baggage that is an inconvenience. It is for this reason that they are usually incapable of empathy; they cannot emotionally relate to another person if they do not physically understand the other person's emotion. They may well see the full range of other people's emotions as trivial and a distraction; more they may even view them with something approaching disgust, and intellectually beneath them. This is another form of a psychopath's vanity.

For psychopaths, "emotions" are usually used as part of their wider defence mechanism - they often successfully learn to mimic and act in order to blend in, but these short-term uses of emotion are simply another part of the the psychopath's weaponry. They learn how to be overtly charming and flirtatious where necessary in order to get what they want, and may be capable of hiding their real emotional emptiness very successfully. Because none of their emotions are genuine, they can find it easy to switch to whichever "mask" fits the bill. It's for this reason why a psychopath may well convincingly appear as a totally different person, depending on who they're interacting with. 

Although psychopaths are usually emotionally shallow, they can also be susceptible to short-term flashes of emotion, that will flare up suddenly, and can fade away just as quickly. Psychopaths are generally short-tempered and quick to anger, if caught unawares by something. The cause of these potentially-dangerous bursts of violent emotion can seem trivial to a neutral onlooker, but to the psychopath it may be deadly serious. This is also due to their maladjusted conception of emotions, so can behave in an emotionally inappropriate way because they have no sense of social guilt or perspective.
Psychopaths have a skewed sense of perspective, different from the rest of society; as a result, their reactions tend to be wildly disproportionate in response to unfavourable outcomes. If something doesn't go their way, they can become dangerously temperamental. Similarly, a psychopath may violently lose his temper in a flash simply because someone looked at him the wrong way; similarly, if someone has got the wrong side of a psychopath, they can make the person's life a living hell, simply for the sake of "getting even".

The only emotions a psychopath truly "understands" are primal and animalistic: pleasure and pain. "Love" is a concept not only alien to many psychopaths; it might even seem ridiculous or pathetic: sex is simply either a pleasure to be enjoyed amorally, or a tool for further advancement. As a psychopath only truly understands the primal concepts of pleasure and pain, it also follows in their emotionally maladjusted psychology, that psychopaths tend to be sadists. As they feel no guilt or proper emotions, and see humanity as a tool for their own purposes, people themselves become dehumanised in the eyes of a psychopath. 

Two types of psychopathic sadism

Two "types" of psychopathic sadism can be distinguished from the wider aspect of psychopathy: the "amoral sadist", and the "malicious sadist".

Joseph Stalin, as I mentioned before, is a prime example of an amoral sadist. This is the "classic psychopath" amoral use of sadism for the purposes of pure convenience eg. a psychopath dictators' unflinching use of mass murder to achieve a particular result (i.e. the preservation of power), without any show of empathy for the victims; likewise, a psychopathic CEO who fires thousands of staff at a stroke, or recklessly causes an environmental disaster (such as in Bhopal, India thirty years ago) could also be classified as signs of "amoral sadism". This psychopath does not feel any measurable "pleasure" from such actions; he simply does it to achieve a result that benefits him. Stalin was what may be called a "classic psychopath" as he simply did whatever needed to be done to achieve his aims. In that sense, he was more like a "mafia boss" that happened to rule the largest country in the world, who eliminated his rivals and enemies,  encouraging a climate of fear, and opportunistically used foreign policy as an instrument to extend his power.  Like the mafia boss, for Stalin it was "nothing personal, just business".

By contrast, Adolf Hitler could more realistically be called a "malicious sadist". This is a psychopath who had more a malignantly narcissistic syndrome channeled into a need for "revenge" against perceived enemies or to "right" or a long-perceived "wrong" at the expense of "the enemy"; Hitler's sadism was based on perceived historical injury, and directed primarily at the Jews. With the "malignant sadist", it is the overwhelming narcissism that is the main motivation for sadism. Sexual sadists may also fall more accurately into this category.
To be strictly fair, Stalin's belief in Communism was arguably also used as a weapon for some aspects of malignant sadism (he had a strong antipathy of the Poles), but Stalin was more obviously a cold-hearted, amoral and calculating individual who used his position more for amoral self-preservation than Hitler's strong desire for narcissistic "revenge" and delusional flights of fantasy, like his architectural obsession with "Germania".

Jimmy Savile is a more contemporary example of a malicious (and clearly very narcissistic) sadist; his form of sadism was more about psychological torture and control over his many "victims", who he would intimidate into silence.   

For a maliciously sadistic psychopath to "win" in a situation, it follows that someone else must be seen to "lose"; otherwise the situation is of only marginal benefit to the psychopath. This is the crux of this latter type of psychopath's sadism; to gain pleasure from another's pain, especially when inflicted (directly or indirectly) by the psychopath himself.
Married with their sense of entitlement, and that their victims either "deserve" their fate, or will somehow benefit from it in the long-term, psychopaths see human interaction as simply a power-play.

In reality, most psychopaths may have some combination of the two, with one "type" more dominant than the other: a psychopath can be sadistic for the sake of amoral convenience, or pleasure, or both.

Partners of psychopaths will be treated as objects to be dominated and controlled, either psychologically, physically or sexually. They will cheat on partners and blame it on their partner, or worse, leave a collection of single mothers with an absent father in their wake. Psychopaths are usually sexual sadists and view sex as amorally as anything else ; as a result, they also tend to be fascinated by the darker and more extreme side of sexuality, delving in amoral perversion and extremes. This might include paedophilia, physical sadism for sexual pleasure, and so on. You can read more on "sexual psychopathy" here.

Looking for the next thrill

Further than that, psychopaths are always on the look-out for the next challenge or opportunity, and their "career choices" usually reflect this. Psychopaths are thrill-seekers, often without thought to the effect on others or even themselves. They usually seek to live in places with a fast pace of life: large and diverse cities, for example, in order to fulfill their many and fast-changing whims. A small number of psychopaths may be more schizoid (i.e. anti-social and openly misanthropic); they may alternatively seek to find a "niche" (eg. a small town) where they can feel superior to the local population, so they can become the master of their domain, nurturing their ego as a "big fish in a small pond". 

But as they get bored easily, many of them find it difficult to settle down in one area for long, before they feel the need to "challenge" themselves, or pursue unrealistic goals. Hence psychopaths (if not "socially-adjusted") are often adulterers or serial divorcees, or will quit a job at a moment's notice with no regard to the inconvenience to the company. Or if they have attained a position of high status, they will make reckless decisions that affect the lives of many, with no regard to the consequences. As they are bored easily, they can always justify making snap decisions by coming up with a convenient excuse. Or if (as is often the case) their snap decision goes wrong, they will always find someone else to blame. 

A psychopath never feels the need to be responsible for his actions; yet at the same time, he praises himself when he is the recipient of good fortune.

The life of the psychopath is an amoral pursuit of pleasure and power, and a shameless flight from responsibility.

It seems no coincidence that psychopaths can therefore become very successful capitalists. 

The world's globalised economy seems almost designed to most benefit psychopaths. Furthermore, strands of psychopathic thinking and sadism can be found in the world's most common ideologies. 
Not only that, but there is good reason to think that psychopaths have evolved through a combination of natural selection and adapting to social conditions, playing an important role in human evolution itself.

For all their flaws, psychopaths appear to be a natural product of evolution. They are nature's hunters. As the author of the book "The Wisdom Of Psychopaths" points out, there can be "good psychopaths" as well as the more infamous "bad psychopaths". 

What decides which one is which is most likely a combination of environment and intelligence.

  

Why Psychopaths are running the world

There have been many articles written, especially over the past few years, about the link between capitalism and psychopathy.
I wrote something similar myself last year here
As a reminder, the twenty common recognised characteristics of psychopaths are:

• Glibness/superficial charm
• Grandiose sense of self-worth
• Pathological lying
• Cunning/manipulative
• Lack of remorse or guilt

• Emotionally shallow
• Callous/lack of empathy
• Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

• Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
• Parasitic lifestyle
• Lack of realistic, long-term goals
• Impulsiveness
• Irresponsibility
• Poor behavioral controls
• Early behavioral problems
• Juvenile delinquency
• Revocation of conditional release
• Criminal versatility.

The list above is taken from the generally-recognised "psychopath check-list". In order to be classified as a "psychopath", a person should fit with the large majority of these characteristics, either partially or fully.

Psychopaths, medically speaking, are a human aberration, which are usually born with the "moral" part of the brain not functioning. In other words, they are physically incapable of feeling empathy (i.e. pity or remorse), and have difficulty understanding real human emotion. They are therefore extremely dangerous in wider society, responsible for the majority of violent crime, fraud - and also are disproportionately represented in the higher echelons of business and politics.

Because psychopaths naturally make decisions on an amoral basis, they are naturally advantaged in the area of business, where decisions that can decide the fate of thousands (of employees, or customers) should be for the benefit of the business, regardless of the consequences on the wider world. Free market capitalism, at its heart, is based on an amoral philosophy, and those who are naturally amoral are bound to prosper in it. 

So when characteristics such as amorality are combined with other psychopathic traits, such as cunning, arrogance, a grandiose sense of self-worth, and irresponsibility, in the world of business and politics, they are seen not as human weaknesses, but strengths. "Amorality" is seen as being hard-headed, "cunning" is seen as being practical, "arrogance" is seen as self-confidence, "a grandiose sense of self-worth" is seen as ambition, "irresponsibility" is seen as being a risk-taker. You get the idea.

So psychopaths are therefore more likely to prosper and quickly advance in a corporation than the average human being, as they posses characteristics that business see as "skills". An intelligent psychopath will more easily be able to climb the corporate ladder; an intelligent psychopath will be able to remain "undetected" for longer, even for life, if they can find a profession where their characteristics blend in seamlessly with their social peers. A psychopath has no remorse or sorrow for what they do; it is their nature to be remorseless and merciless. These feelings are beyond their comprehension. There are also the less intelligent psychopaths: these are the ones you're more likely to hear about, because they were caught. These are the serial killers, thieves and fraudsters who were not smart enough to know how to evade detection or know how to get what they wanted without violence. What slightly annoys me about Bret Easton-Ellis' novel "American Psycho" is that his portrayal of Patrick Bateman as a psychopath lacks the full spectrum of psychopathic characteristics - you see his violent urges, but little of his charm, manipulation and cunning.The psychopath serial killers are usually the ones that haven't found a way to repress their violent urges through other methods; a high-powered businessman as a serial killer is therefore an unlikely event.  

The way they usually manage to escape detection for so long is because they learn to be good actors, learning how to imitate human emotions, copying a look, or a mimic, in order to blend in. Naturally charming, persuasive and gregarious, even flirtatious, psychopaths can easily manipulate others to get what they want. Which is why, apart from business, psychopaths are also attracted to public office.
One other thing worth mentioning about psychopaths is that their irresponsibility is often displayed through a flagrant sex life - leaving a string of women with fatherless children, for example. In other words, the desire to callously "spread their seed", means their psychopathic behaviour is more likely to trickle down to the "next generation", through a combination of passing on their psychopathic genetic traits, as well as the environmental factor of children being born into an unstable family unit. One psychopath can breed many more psychopaths because of their amoral sexual behaviour. This tells us that if this is repeated over a long enough time frame, psychopaths can become even more prevalent in human society, creating even more chaos, proliferating over the generations like an unstoppable virus. This makes stories about the many sexual indiscretions of politicians and high-powered business leaders even less surprising.

Look again at the psychopath check-list, and think about the number of politicians fit the description. It's especially revealing to look at the childhoods of politician and leaders. I recently looked at Stalin here as a case study for what happens when a psychopath takes control of the world's largest country.The answer was chaos. Stalin ruled the country through a thousand shades of terror, to the point that no-one knew who to trust or what to think. He manipulated the US President in order to control half of Europe, tried to starve West Berlin to break post-war Germany, and instigated and maintained the Korean War until his death. As we saw from Stalin's childhood, his violent upbringing, living an amoral life in the rough streets of Tsarist Georgia, fits with the common characteristics of psychopathy. And everything else about his life fits the bill exactly. 

There are other public figures, more recently, who also seem to have a worryingly-high correlation with the characteristics on the psychopathy check-list. I do seriously wonder about the metal state of Michael Gove, the current UK Education minister: he seems to lack any empathy at all, and seems intent on creating chaos in the education system, and so on.

But the wider point is this: because corporations and public office are naturally attractive to psychopaths as the skills necessary closely correlate to their own characteristics, is it any surprise that the world is in such a mess? 

The Financial Crisis of 2008 was caused through the irresponsibility and amorality of the financial sector, who encouraged staffers who would take the biggest risks on investments they tricked others into taking. Then when this house of cards came tumbling down, the financial sector blackmailed the politicians into what is effectively a huge protection racket. The politicians then manipulated the wider public into accepting paying for that racket out of their own pocket, while the politicians also set about dismantling the public sector beyond recognition, leaving little left for the public to recognise. Countries like Greece and Spain are bearing the brunt of a vast social experiment organised by the IMF and ECB in Frankfurt; closer to home, the UK government is attempting something similar.

And while all this is going on, those who are at the top 1 per cent are continuing their game of avoiding tax, routinely committing crimes that rob the nations of the world from revenue that would be more than enough to pay off the world's debts. This 1 per cent are responsible for perpetuating a system of "controlled anarchy": a system designed to favour those at the top of the hierarchy to do as they wish, while forcing us "mere mortals" to live off less and less while fighting each other in an increasingly unstable and deteriorating working environment, yet told to follow the rules religiously or face the full force of the law. This is the law (and chronic instability) that the 1 per cent designed.
Technology developed through this Neo-liberal Capitalist system serves two functions: making it easier for the private sector-government symbiosis to monitor peoples' actions; while other aspects of technology act as a sop, deluding workers into thinking that their lives are superficially getting better. "Facebook" conveniently combines these two ideas together.

It is estimated that, depending on where you draw the line, psychopaths make up between 1 and 5 per cent of the general population. It should give those who chant "we are the 99 per cent" some food for thought. Which "99 per cent"? And which "1 per cent"? The ultra-rich, or the ultra-psychopaths? To what extent is there an overlap between the richest 1 per cent and the psychopathic 1 per cent?

When you look at the behaviour of those who are in positions of power, be it in business, finance or politics, you sometimes seriously do have to wonder about the mental state of some of them. When psychopaths are put in positions of power, the result is anarchy. 

Isn't that what the world is facing now?

The psychological state of the Conservative government

The Conservative party, led by David Cameron, have been in government in the UK (with their Lib Dem coalition partners) for nearly two years now.

Politically, if you ignore Cameron's involvement in the war with Libya, the Conservative government's time has been dominated by a series of controversies, so much so that they have defined their time in office: the austerity cuts; student fees; health and education reform; the Liam Fox resignation; the UKBA controversy (fresh in the news today); and the future status of Scotland.

That's a pretty long list for a party that's less than two years into government. And let's not forget, that's a government led by a party than didn't win an overall majority; the two main "left-of-centre" parties have more MPs in parliament put together than the UK's sole "centre-right" party. Only by the grace of the Lib Dems do the Conservatives earn the right to govern.

By comparison, when the Labour government came to power in 1997 with a majority of more than 170, its main priority was to avoid controversy at almost every turn, so that its first two years in power were virtually empty of bad headlines. The only exception was over the introduction of tuition fees. The major changes it did bring about in the first two years - on things like the minimum wage, and devolution to Scotland and Wales (and later, following the success of the peace process, Northern Ireland) - it did with broad public support.

It is obvious to say that circumstances in the UK have changed since then. Yes, the financial crisis, partly brought about through the Labour government's reluctance to regulate the financial industry, has changed things. But that does not explain, even less justify, the mentality of the Conservatives.

Depending on the issue, the Conservatives' attitude to government has varied.

On the austerity cuts, government has shown a myopic narrow-mindedness (what they call "determination to see things through"), even in the face of evidence of the folly of their approach and the clear plight being caused as a result.

On the health reforms and education reforms, the relevant Conservative ministers have shown a disregard for others (failing to ignore the concerns of professionals, let alone the principles of democracy, given that they have no mandate for "reform").

On student fees, the same behavioural pattern was shown - intransigence and lack of empathy in the face of criticism and the needs of young people.

The Liam Fox resignation displayed the arrogance and casual disregard to proper behaviour, favouritism and cronyism that many Conservatives are habitually guilty of. In other words, behaving as though they were above reproach.

Meanwhile, the way that the Prime Minister and his ministers have been dealing with the constitutional wishes of the Scots (independence or otherwise), is with a similar bloody-minded unwillingness intransigence and narrow-mindedness. Given the fact that the Conservatives' natural political support in Scotland is negligible, this attitude is even more unfathomable. The Conservatives have no moral voice in Scotland; they rule the nation as though it is a virtual colony. Thus they indirectly generate support for the policy that they say they totally oppose.

Lastly, and most recently, is the UKBA controversy. This was a border fiasco that a report has shown was at least indirectly the result of governmental confusion and ministerial incompetence; yet the minister responsible, Theresa May vents only scorn at the border officials who were trying to do their best under confusing governmental advice, while failing to take any responsibility on her part.

So, taken as a whole picture, the Conservatives' approach to government can be summed up as having the following characteristics: lack of empathy to others' misfortune, intransigence, narrow-mindedness, arrogance, failure to accept responsibility, and incompetence.

There was a documentary some years ago about the psychological behaviour of corporations, coming to the conclusion that if corporations were psychologically analysed as people, they would be considered psychopaths.

One wonders, looking at the behavioural traits mentioned above, what conclusions would be reached if the Conservative government as a whole were measured in the same way.

Notes on Capitalism and Psychopathology

To paraphrase the American Psychiatric Association, there are seven characteristics that identify psychopaths. However, in order to considered a real “psychopath”, only three of these characteristics needs to be in evidence. They are:
Repeated anti-social or socially unacceptable behaviour (that would normally be thought of as inconsiderate or openly rude).
Repeated lying or deceit; conning others for personal gain or pleasure.
Impulsive or thoughtless behaviour; failing to plan or think ahead.
Recklessness towards the safety or yourself or others.
Consistent irresponsibility; not fulfilling social, work or financial obligations.
Lack of guilt towards the harm you have caused or may cause others.
Aggressive or easily turned violent (i.e. with an explosive and short temper).

In other words, psychopaths tend to be aggressive and violent; find excuses for causing evil actions; have no sense of responsibility to others; are reckless; are impulsive and have little sense of the future; lie, cheat, conspire and trick others for their own ends; and have no concept of social rules.

To paraphrase the ideas of Capitalism as explained by Ayn Rand of the “Objectivist” school of thought, the key principles of Objectivism are:
To be against all forms of control (either by governments or other people) except for those necessary for maintaining “law and order”
Believe that people are by nature rational (though some may not be; see below).
Mankind progresses through each individual using the mind independently and not depending on others for their survival.
Those that depend on others are therefore, by definition, irrational; those that do not use their minds are morons.
Selfishness is therefore the highest virtue. Selflessness and altruism are the highest forms of evil as they disrupt a person’s ability to think for themselves and impose controls of people’s decisions.
Society functions through the value of exchange in a “free market”; all actions are carried out for the sake of what can be got in return.
There can be no such thing as “social rights”, as “society” is an artificial construct; the only rights are “individual rights”.
There can be no such thing as “democracy”; this is the rule of the mob, and therefore philosophically no different from tyranny.


To paraphrase George Orwell, every liberal is always a few steps away from being a fascist. Comparing the principles of Capitalism and the behavioural characteristics, it doesn’t take long for a pure Capitalist to turn into a psychopath.

Let’s compare the characteristics of both.
In order to be a Capitalist, one, by definition, has to have a negative (cynical) view of governments and society as a whole. A psychopath also has a cynical view of humanity; this is how they justify exploiting and using people for their own benefit.
A Capitalist believes that people are usually rational; the caveat is that those who are not must therefore be “lesser” human beings – irrational animals rather than rational humans. Believing that some people may be “lower” than others is also a mentality that can be held by psychopaths; this is how they would give a second justification to guiltless behaviour.
Just as a Capitalist believes that all actions by a “rational” human being are done for what they can get out of them, so would a psychopath. A psychopath is not interested in other person’s feelings and attitudes; neither is a Capitalist. Capitalists consider “feelings” and “emotions” to be sentimental leftovers of an animalistic and irrational mind, and get in the way of the exchange of goods and services.
For this reason, friendships and human relationships, to a Capitalist, are purely for the purpose of benefit to the self. To have a human relationship for the purpose of “helping others” is an anathema to a Capitalist. The same could be said of a psychopath.
As there is no such thing as society, Capitalists see the world as a state of informal “war of exchange” between a mass of individuals. While a “light touch” government maintains the minimum of law of order, a state of nature close to chaos exists in reality, allowing the strong and mentally adept to take the most advantage of the situation. A psychopath would feel well at home in such an environment.
As Capitalists do not believe in artificially imposed “social norms” (as they are leftovers of an irrational, medievalist mind), people therefore would have no need to worry about their social behaviour. If people are free to act as they please, provided they do not actively control other people’s actions, then naturally there would no need to respect “old-fashioned” social norms. This fits neatly with the thinking of a psychopath, who also has no need to respect social norms.
When a “rational” Capitalist encounters a person in a much direr situation than them, what would the result be? A Capitalist, by definition, would refuse to help those in a much direr situation than them; so the outcast will eventually die without help. The Capitalist, logically, would know this to be the case also, all things being equal. This would make the Capitalist an indirect party to the death of the outcast. From an intellectual point of view, because the Capitalist is “rational”, he is of greater consciousness of his actions than the “irrational” outcast; therefore, the Capitalist would legally take the greater responsibility for failing to prevent a previously knowable death. The “irrational” outcast cannot be equally to blame for his own death for he knows no better than to ask for help; in this way, the Capitalist therefore acts with the same rationale as a psychopath: by being knowingly reckless and irresponsible towards the safety of others. He literally does not care if the outcast lives or dies – worse, he intellectually would be able to rationalise the death to himself.
To the Capitalist, the death of the outcast would be the fault of the outcast. The Capitalist has no right to interfere in the actions of another individual. To the psychopath, the death of another person is no concern of his. The effect is the same; only the rationale is subtly different. The psychopath is mentally deranged, so has no obvious rational faculty; but the Capitalist is, as we have seen, a “rational” human being. Which, then, is more evil: death through the indifference of a mentally disturbed psychopath; or death through the “rational” omission of the Capitalist?

These things being the case, we can see that a Capitalist easily matches most of the behaviour perpetrated by psychopaths; certainly the majority of these characteristics. In fact, in some ways, Capitalism, after this intellectual and psychological analysis, seems even more inhumane than the madness of psychopathology: at least psychopaths have the excuse of mental illness for their behaviour. But Capitalists are capable of almost the exact same behaviour, yet still able to claim a “rational” mind.
How is this intellectually possible?

A psychopath is generally considered as someone who is by nature violent. This perception is a stereotype: violent behaviour, as we can see from the list of most common behavioural traits of psychopathology, is merely one symptom. Psychopaths are not always violent. Violence is just a side-effect of a syndrome that is indifferent to other’s fate, and a possible behavioural outcome. In this way, violence is an option to a psychopath that a rational person would not normally consider.
Capitalists are, by nature, non-violent. The principles of Capitalism forbid violence as they are a form of control on others, breaking the fundamental principle of free-will. However, Capitalists are, by nature, also indifferent to others’ fate (like psychopaths). Moreover, they are able to rationally justify such behaviour into their belief system. Although a Capitalist may be non-violent, they would also be indifferent to violence committed onto others, provided it does not affect them directly. There is a psychological term for this behavioural trait: passive-aggressive.
This is the difference between the direct violence of psychopaths (who have no sense of right or wrong), and the indirect violence of Capitalists (who are indifferent to the fate of others): as said earlier, the effect is the same, only the method and rationale is different.

Here is a typical example in point: a psychopath as a national leader can justify the killing of a segment of the population as a necessary act to “maintain order”. A Capitalist as a single person can rationally justify deaths of millions through starvation and neglect because those people chose to neglect themselves and starve. There is no sense of “morality” to either the psychopath or the Capitalist because these questions are not his concern and “morality” is a considered a socially-artificial concept. The only concern to the psychopath and the Capitalist is the self. Society and “social responsibility” is an alien concept; therefore, they are both indifferent to it.

A Capitalist does not need to be a psychopath in order to be successful, but psychopaths can make very successful Capitalists.

A discussion of this issue continues here