SolitaryWalker
Tenured roisterer
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,504
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w6
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Is Kevin Dutton saying, though, that psychopathy exists on a continuum and that in "smaller doses" those traits have advantages? That is different than having a non-functioning amygdala. Some damage to the amygdala actually increases rage and anxiety, so I would need to see more about the research that places so many with similar personality traits into the same category.
Psychopathy emerges only when a certain kind of damage to amygdala is done, it is possible to damage it in another manner and end up with a distinctly non-psychopathic personality.
It isn't news to me that there are high-functioning psychopaths who live out their lives in professional work environments. What isn't clear is the nature of their motivation and how that is assumed beneficial.
It is assumed beneficial because most people covet the achievements that psychopaths easily attain such as wealth, status and power. Additionally, psychopathic leaders tend to be more efficient at authoritarian styles of leadership than the non-psychopaths.
I can see fragmented versions of benefit like with a heart surgeon I knew of that was skilled in surgery, but so cruel in his communication that every nurse that worked for him ended up physically ill.
Kevin Dutton studied several high-profile surgeons in Britain who were renowned for their ability to succeed in even the most hopeless of operations. In scenarios where their normal peers would be inclined to panic, the psychopathic surgeon remains composed and focused.
If he hadn't been admitted to medical school, then someone else would have and they would have been performing those same surgeries,.
Probably less effectively and saving fewer lives, the psychopathic surgeon is saving dozens of lives at the expense of the nurses' feelings, seems like a trade-off that serves the public good. I bet if these nurses were presented with a study showcasing their psychopathic supervisor's superior skill-level to his normal colleagues, they'd zealously campaign for him to keep his job, if that ever came into question.
only not making the nurses ill. While there are some positives and some negatives, it is a net gain, but is it greater than if a non-psychopath did the same endeavor?
Research clearly shows that psychopaths have a very large edge in professions that require composure under intense pressure, high-level of emotional detachment, deep mindfulness and unremitting focus on the task at hand.
I really don't think a person has to be a psychopath to be excellent at helping during a crisis.
Yeah, so what. I am sure non-psychopaths excel at surgery, but psychopaths tend to be more talented at it.
There are millions of examples of people who are successful at performing those tasks. The more power a psychopath has, the more damage they can do to the world if for their own benefit. It would definitely explain why corporations and governments are causing so much abuse to humanity and the environment.
Another trade-off, Hitler rebuilt Germany and started a genocidal war, Constantine was likely a psychopath but he brought Christianity to its peak glory at the time and Stalin was highly instrumental at leading the Soviet Union to become a World Power. It is true that we'd have fewer crimes against humanity and crimes against the environment without psychopaths, but we'd also be probably stuck in the Dark Ages.
Those are the traits that our society has come to value, and so he pushed the exactly correct button to make a name for himself. It can make people feel strong to think of being like a psychopath, but there are other ways to be strong, and it has to do with expanding the sense of self beyond the individual.
If only it was that simple, human nature is carnal, vile and radically egocentric. It takes an extremely egoistical person with a very low risk-aversion to take on the kind of responsibility that comes along with becoming a large business or a government leader. When faced with tough decisions, psychopaths rarely flinch, but normal people have to consider the human element of the situation and that often deters from doing what needs to be doing to help the civilization progress.
Perhaps the book itself is not presenting psychopathy as an idealized form of being?
Where did I mention "idealized" or "superior"? You're reading into things that are just not there. Kevin Dutton claims that psychopaths have "too much of a good thing" and normal people would be well advised to learn from them without trying to be like them on a regular basis. Meaning, a normal person should learn to be ruthless and tough-minded in business or surgery, but learn to "turn it off" when such behavioral strategies are no longer relevant.
The OP here reads like you are presenting it idealized.
Nothing idealized about it, psychopaths have advantages over us in many walks of life and we need to see how many people on this forum appreciate that fact. I voted "no" on my own poll.
The only drawback you see is the lack of forming social bonds? But perhaps the psychopath doesn't care, in which case why would that be any greater drawback than the lack of empathy? or the dimmed emotional responses?
Psychopaths don't care about social bonds, but they're missing out on an experience that they cannot even imagine as they can't reap the joys of having deep interpersonal connection. Another drawback to being a psychopath is that they may fail to respond in situations where a risk-averse strategy is more appropriate than their usual modus operandi.
I will not go point for point with this since I am likely to disappear for a month or so after this post (I have not made the decision explicitly, but it is a likely scenario). Perhaps I don't have the proper psychological definition of psycopath fixed in my mind. Perhaps I am using a different definition of lacking conscience than what Kevin Dutton does. This is the first I've heard of the book, and I don't know what is being described.
Martha Sout defines a lack of conscience as a lack of a moral obligation to other people based on an emotional attachment to them or humanity in general. Dutton does not define the term.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sociopath...374105320&sr=8-1&keywords=Sociopath+next+door
My main point if the lack of desire avoid doing harm to others is not a desirable trait, no matter what advantages they may seem to confer. The desire to do harm is the essence of being evil.
Most psychopaths do not desire to do harm unless it benefits them.