For example, take a psychopathic heart surgeon who has a high level of technical skill (based on intelligence, eye/hand coordination, etc). This person is easily offended, so when the nurse looks at him wrong, he flies off the handle being verbally abusive, throwing stuff, etc. during the surgery. Perhaps there are cases where this has a negative effect on the procedure. Being psychopathic this individual successfully shifts the blame to members of his team who end up fired. The record of the surgeon remains clean. Would this be an example of being successful as a surgeon? There is a great deal of grey area, or perhaps complex intertwining of black-and-white. My position is that the basic framework of the psychopath has both potential strengths and weaknesses to perform high pressure, high control, high power tasks. I don't think it is simply an advantage, which is what I am interpreting you have been saying. My position is distinctly not based on dichotomies.
Another issue I wonder about specially regarding this idea that "psychopaths do better than non-psychopaths in certain professions", and you have asked why is it difficult to think that psychopaths would do better in professions that have the pursuit of status and money. My question about "doing better in a profession" has to do with style vs. substance. I'm not necessarily arguing that psychopaths cannot be incredibly successful as CEOs, politicians, lawyers, etc., but my question is if this success is being measured in terms of status and money, or in terms of skill at accomplishing what the job is intended to accomplish. Does the politician successfully represent the people and promote policies in their interest? Does the doctor successfully "do no harm"? Does the CEO, well, hyper-capitolism is based on psychopathic values, so yeah, there they probably do their job better than anyone - make money for the shareholders at any cost to humanity and the environment.