Thought experiment: Should public leaders be tested for psychopathy?

[Ursa]

With current events in mind, the OP's question should be: "Should leaders be tested for cluster-B personality disorders?"

Unfortunately, the answer is no, and that is only because many of the people who belong to the aforementioned group know how to dupe the tests. Waste of time and dollars.

A better way to identify problematic people is to require tangible evidence subject to analysis for questionable conduct. For instance, the federal government should require presidential candidates to disclose their respective tax returns.

 

[Amargith]

Most elderly men have a much more toned down ego issue...they dont want it stepped on. Nothing compared to Trump complaining because his magnificent gold plated statue was called out for what is and not the image he wants it to be. Trump is more like...dont keep me from inflating my ego full of hot air.

I wonder if anyone fears a psychiatrist for the president actually mentally steering him?

Pretty sure that already happens through advisers who are skilled at emotional manipulation.

 

[The Cat]

This has been interesting so far, but my question, and apologies if this has already been addressed somewhere, but does this assume that all people with personality disorders are, for lack of a better word atm, villains or would be monsters?

 

[nonsequitur]

This has been interesting so far, but my question, and apologies if this has already been addressed somewhere, but does this assume that all people with personality disorders are, for lack of a better word atm, villains or would be monsters?

Because that's what it looks like on TV. Labelling people in this way makes dehumanisation easier. For all of the left's talk about accepting differences in the way people function, that only seems to apply to an in-group that's cutely portrayed on TV.

"You're free to be whomever/whatever you are, as long as I approve. Otherwise, you're not allowed to vote, not allowed to run for president, might as well just lock you up because you're a danger." There's no consideration of the individual's personhood or their choices/actions. Pejoratively labelling someone you dislike, and then extending the hate to everyone else who suffers under the stigma of that label. Then turning around to throw labels at the right for doing the same thing. The hypocrisy is stunning. Being a psychopath or a sociopath is hardly a pre-requisite to being selfish and self-delusional about your own righteousness.

[...and that is why I was reluctant to participate]

 

[Peter Deadpan]

[MENTION=30038]Gentleman Jack[/MENTION] - I think that is exactly where the split in opinions is originating. There are some AP disordered individuals who recognize the harm they are capable of inflicting and choose to do their best to live a more considerate life. I would imagine the percentage is fairly low, but it's there and it's important to acknowledge. Also, as with anything in life, I'm sure APD exists on a spectrum, with some individuals being MUCH more dangerous than others.

Ethically, is someone with APD to blame for their disorder? No. It just happend. Maybe they survived extreme abuse during childhood, maybe they were born that way, who knows. But they are no more to blame than someone with Bipolar Disorder who experiences a manic psychosis and runs through the street naked destroying property (extreme end of the spectrum).

Let's use Bipolar Disorder as an example here: Let's say John has Bipolar Disorder. He is not medicated or his medication is not yet balanced (many people with BD have to try several medications and it can take some time to figure out the best combination/dose). John has a girlfriend named Jane. When John is manic ("up"), he gets irritable and lashes out at Jane verbally, yelling and calling her names he doesn't even mean. Jane is hurt and retreats. The next day, John feels awful for what he said. He didn't mean it. "Why did I say those things?" - he asks himself. He is now feeling very depressed (low) and feels that he is a monster. This is a cycle that repeats, for some often and for others only once a year or so. Were John's actions hurtful and wrong? Yes. Did John have control over those actions? Not really, not quite yet at least. Can John treat his condition with medication and also learn new strategies to manage his outbursts and depression? Absolutely, but it takes dedication and practice.

For people with both APD and BD, cognitive behavioral therapy can help. There is no medicinal treatment for APD. It's a personality disorder and goes beyond pathology. It's just "in" you, if that makes sense.

Neither person should be judged or attacked or discriminated against for their disorder. However, if John kills his wife in a manic psychosis, he may have to stand trial. If someone with APD kills someone, they will have to stand trial to. They both face consequences for their actions. Trial for both would probably revolve around mental incompetency/insanity and the presence of remorsein addition to whether or not it was premeditated. This explains why APD is looked at as more "evil." They aren't really capable of remorse and their tendency to harm others isn't generally a reactive impulse fueled by disease, as it would be with BD.

I feel for people with both disorders. It's really easy for "normal people" to judge and fear what they don't understand. If you have it, use that empathy to put yourselves in their mind and body and imagine what it would be like to live with either condition. Additionally, both conditions have their benefits, believe it or not. I'd encourage you to look into that as well.

Here is that link again if you want to look into the mind of those who claim to be sociopathic. I say "claim" because it is just a blog afterall, but it should give you a pretty good idea of what it's like. Btw, sociopaths know that they are sociopaths, or at least are well aware that they are different before they even figure out what is going on.

Sociopath World

 

[ceecee]

Most elderly men have a much more toned down ego issue...they dont want it stepped on. Nothing compared to Trump complaining because his magnificent gold plated statue was called out for what is and not the image he wants it to be. Trump is more like...dont keep me from inflating my ego full of hot air.

I wonder if anyone fears a psychiatrist for the president actually mentally steering him?

I'm very sure Jared and Ivanka, Steve Bannon...all have as much influence on him as anyone could. But I mean men of that age are going to tend to eschew mental health care, it's pretty common. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a presidential psychiatrists. I think of it like psychiatrists needing to see a psychiatrist - it's the demands of the job. Look at the Nixon administration. That had all kind of mentally dysfunctional people, lots of pill popping, lots of self medicating scotch, lots of paranoia and acting out.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Also, it is estimated that 1 in 25 people are sociopaths. That.... is a LOT. You probably work with at least one, and there are definitely a bunch on this forum. You probably even enjoy their contributions and intellect. They are more likely to make you laugh with their trolling though and you won't find them comforting all the feelers.

Now I bet you're trying to figure out who they are, haha.

 

[The Cat]

Because that's what it looks like on TV. Labelling people in this way makes dehumanisation easier. For all of the left's talk about accepting differences in the way people function, that only seems to apply to an in-group that's cutely portrayed on TV.

"You're free to be whomever/whatever you are, as long as I approve. Otherwise, you're not allowed to vote, not allowed to run for president, might as well just lock you up because you're a danger." There's no consideration of the individual's personhood or their choices/actions. Pejoratively labelling someone you dislike, and then extending the hate to everyone else who suffers under the stigma of that label. Then turning around to throw labels at the right for doing the same thing. The hypocrisy is stunning. Being a psychopath or a sociopath is hardly a pre-requisite to being selfish and self-delusional about your own righteousness.

[...and that is why I was reluctant to participate]

The whole concept feels disturbing to me, from most of the documentaries I've seen on the matter it makes me think of witch hunts of old.... Personal experience has of course colored my perspective.

 

[prplchknz]

Also, it is estimated that 1 in 25 people are sociopaths. That.... is a LOT. You probably work with at least one, and there are definitely a bunch on this forum. You probably even enjoy their contributions and intellect. They are more likely to make you laugh with their trolling though and you won't find them comforting all the feelers.

Now I bet you're trying to figure out who they are, haha.

not really

 

[nonsequitur]

The whole concept feels disturbing to me, from most of the documentaries I've seen on the matter it makes me think of witch hunts of old.... Personal experience has of course colored my perspective.

I'm not surprised. People will believe whatever they want to believe, make up whatever justifications they need in order to do what they believe is "necessary". The are always ethical exceptions that can be made in how to treat others. Label them enough, make them enough of a caricature and "I'm just protecting everyone (in my in-group)" can be used to justify any rhetoric and behaviour. The collateral damage is just.. y'know, too bad.

I doubt anything that I say will make a difference. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy, the general assumption that neurotypicals are better leaders, and the dehumanisation of people who carry that label.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Actually, I disagree. They're just people who don't understand what either "sociopathy" or "psychopathy" really means. It is quite damaging though, to have to deal with that stigma and internalise that hatred.

Are you saying it's damaging to psychopaths to live with the stigma and the hatred?

Eta: Because it's my understanding that if a person cares about the stigma or about psychopaths being hated, then they probably aren't really a psychopath. When I was looking up different articles yesterday written by James Fallon, I saw in one of them that- when asked how it made him feel to find out he was a psychopath- he didn't care, AND the fact that he didn't begin to care was sorta affirmation of his psychopathy. I'm on my phone right now so I can't quote it here, I'll find it later if necessary.

More eta: at computer now so I can look for what I'm referring to. And I think I'll link a bunch of articles he wrote, for the shittles.

Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath

From the above (first line is interviewer's question):

How did you react to hearing all of this?

I said, "Well, I don't care." And they said, "That proves that you have a fair dose of psychopathy." Scientists don't like to be wrong, and I’m narcissistic so I hate to be wrong, but when the answer is there before you, you have to suck it up, admit it, and move on. I couldn't.

I started reacting with narcissism, saying, "Okay, I bet I can beat this. Watch me and I'll be better." Then I realized my own narcissism was driving that response. If you knew me, you'd probably say, "Oh, he's a fun guy"–or maybe, "He's a big-mouth and a blowhard narcissist"—but I also think you'd say, "All in all, he's interesting, and smart, and okay." But here's the thing—the closer to me you are, the worse it gets. Even though I have a number of very good friends, they have all ultimately told me over the past two years when I asked them—and they were consistent even though they hadn’t talked to each other—that I do things that are quite irresponsible. It’s not like I say, Go get into trouble. I say, Jump in the water with me.

What's an example of that, and how do you come back from hurting someone in that way?

For me, because I need these buzzes, I get into dangerous situations. Years ago, when I worked at the University of Nairobi Hospital, a few doctors had told me about AIDS in the region as well as the Marburg virus. They said a guy had come in who was bleeding out of his nose and ears, and that he had been up in the Elgon, in the Kitum Caves. I thought, "Oh, that’s where the elephants go," and I knew I had to visit. I would have gone alone, but my brother was there. I told him it was an epic trek to where the old matriarch elephants went to retrieve minerals in the caves, but I didn't mention anything else.

When we got there, there was a lot of rebel activity on the mountain, so there was nobody in the park except for one guard. So we just went in. There were all these rare animals and it was tremendous, but also, this guy had died from Marburg after being here, and nobody knew exactly how he’d gotten it. I knew his path and followed it to see where he camped.

That night, we wrapped ourselves around a fire because there were lions and all these other animals. We were jumping around and waving sticks on fire at the animals in the absolute dark. My brother was going crazy and I joked, "I have to put my head inside of yours because I have a family and you don’t, so if a lion comes and bites one of our necks, it’s gotta be you."

Again, I was joking around, but it was a real danger. The next day, we walked into the Kitum Caves and you could see where rocks had been knocked over by the elephants. There was also the smell of all of this animal dung—and that’s where the guy got the Marburg; scientists didn't know whether it was the dung or the bats.

A bit later, my brother read an article in The New Yorker about Marburg, which inspired the movie Outbreak. He asked me if I knew about it. I said, "Yeah. Wasn’t it exciting? Nobody gets to do this trip." And he called me names and said, "Not exciting enough. We could've gotten Marburg; we could have gotten killed every two seconds." All of my brothers have a lot of machismo and brio; you’ve got to be a tough guy in our family. But deep inside, I don't think that my brother fundamentally trusts me after that. And why should he, right? To me, it was nothing.

What has that involved?

I started with simple things of how I interact with my wife, my sister, and my mother. Even though they’ve always been close to me, I don't treat them all that well. I treat strangers pretty well—really well, and people tend to like me when they meet me—but I treat my family the same way, like they're just somebody at a bar. I treat them well, but I don't treat them in a special way. That’s the big problem.

I asked them this—it's not something a person will tell you spontaneously—but they said, "I give you everything. I give you all this love and you really don’t give it back." They all said it, and that sure bothered me. So I wanted to see if I could change. I don't believe it, but I'm going to try.

In order to do that, every time I started to do something, I had to think about it, look at it, and go: No. Don’t do the selfish thing or the self-serving thing. Step-by-step, that's what I’ve been doing for about a year and a half and they all like it. Their basic response is: We know you don’t really mean it, but we still like it.

I told them, "You’ve got to be kidding me. You accept this? It’s phony!" And they said, "No, it’s okay. If you treat people better it means you care enough to try." It blew me away then and still blows me away now.

Underneath, I spoilered parts that I found interesting. In the book he explains it further, saying the conclusion he came to is that he just doesn't care. He does the 'nice' thing because it makes life easier for him, not because he actually cares about making them feel better.

Other articles:

The Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath (Smithsonian)

How I discovered I have the brain of a psychopath

 

[Poki]

Pretty sure that already happens through advisers who are skilled at emotional manipulation.

I agree, but can you imagine a person thats "suppose to" mentally "fix" you. Its like taking it to another "legal" level that can go even further then what external people can do who are just skilled at it.

 

[nonsequitur]

Are you saying it's damaging to psychopaths to live with the stigma and the hatred?

Eta: Because it's my understanding that if a person cares about the stigma or about psychopaths being hated, then they probably aren't really a psychopath. When I was looking up different articles yesterday written by James Fallon, I saw in one of them that- when asked how it made him feel to find out he was a psychopath- he didn't care, AND the fact that he didn't begin to care was sorta affirmation of his psychopathy. I'm on my phone right now so I can't quote it here, I'll find it later if necessary.

It may very well be that certain individuals are indifferent to the stigma. I am aware of James Fallon's work. But a single individual cannot be extrapolated to a significant number of people. There are also huge concerns about interpretations of PET scans given neural plasticity - his interpretation of his own scan in the context of what others said about him could very well be an example of confirmation bias. The brain is not a static object, we know that cognitive and management therapies for disorders like OCD and major depression can physically rewire the brain.

The words "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" are associated with different personality disorders and are framed as static traits that cannot be controlled/managed. People with personality disorders are labeled with these terms and either internalise this hatred or use it as a justification for not controlling their own behaviours, because they are told that they can't help themselves. But there are also people who are technically sociopathic who seek to control their behaviours and avoid hurting people. What I am saying is that the very assumptions underlying this conversation are wrong and provide no incentive to formally diagnosed individuals who are dealing with the label to manage their limitations.

Like I said, I'm not keen to participate in this thread given the way that the conversation has been framed. As such, I will politely take my leave.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

If there were a reliable means of knowing who is a sociopath, I would support such a restriction. But that's a big if. Supposing such a test were necessary to run for political office, a whole industry would emerge around teaching people how to fool it. Furthermore, there's a good chance that the test itself would be modified by political forces.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I find it interesting the people are showing up all "there's a lot of misinformation flying around", (seemingly) confident their own understanding is *the one* correct understanding. (I don't mean to sound judgmental- I'm sometimes the "my own understanding is the correct understanding" person myself- my point is rather that this is 'one of those things' where there's just a whole lot of different camps to believe in, and it's interesting.) Much like "narcissism", I haven't found much of a universal consensus over the meaning of "psychopath"- both of which get used colloquially quite a bit, muddying the definition even further. It's not like I feel strongly that my own conception is *the one*- I'm just going mostly with the way James Fallon has described it in his book.

I also want to point out that getting "psychopath" results on an internet test, or even the HARE test, has far less credibility than actual brain scan results. I maintain that I find it hard to believe anyone with hurt feelings about people hating on psychopaths is actually a psychopath. A bruised ego maybe, but not hurt feelings.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

We could just go by the facts of public officials records, votes, promises and decisions.

But we already have that information. I guess we want some magic stamp of approval to do the work of relieving the public of some anxiety about future bad decisions. We must have a scapegoat!

It's not our collective decisions that are responsible for anything. It must be that candidates mental health! Yeah, that's what needs to be determined because then conflict and war won't happen. Or something. I don't know.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's not our collective decisions that are responsible for anything. It must be that candidates mental health!

Just curious, why does this keep turning into "mental health", instead of specifically psychopathy?

While it's clearly become debatable that psychopaths are as destructive and irresponsible as the stigma, I don't think any single person in this thread has said this concern should be spread to all mental illness.

It's not helpful to keep exaggerating this. eta: I mean, it's actually more distortion than exaggeration, I think. Not intentional, but still. I take no delight in inadvertently distressing people- but like, people seem to even be getting distressed by things they are inserting themselves into the dialogue. And it's hard to interact with that.

 

[prplchknz]

We could just go by the facts of public officials records, votes, promises and decisions.

But we already have that information. I guess we want some magic stamp of approval to do the work of relieving the public of some anxiety about future bad decisions. We must have a scapegoat!

It's not our collective decisions that are responsible for anything. It must be that candidates mental health! Yeah, that's what needs to be determined because then conflict and war won't happen. Or something. I don't know.

no it will regardless

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Just curious, why does this keep turning into "mental health", instead of specifically psychopathy?

While it's clearly become debatable that psychopaths are as destructive and irresponsible as the stigma, I don't think any single person in this thread has said this concern should be spread to all mental illness.

It's not helpful to keep exaggerating this. eta: I mean, it's actually more distortion than exaggeration, I think. Not intentional, but still. I take no delight in inadvertently distressing people- but like, people seem to even be getting distressed by things they are inserting themselves into the dialogue. And it's hard to interact with that.

I refer you to my other post in this thread.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...sted-psychopathy-post2783103.html#post2783103

You speak of psychopathy but the way you are defining this or how it is being thrown about here is vague at best. The premise, while cute as a thought exercise, has built in ignorance of how psychpathic TRAITS actually are defined and diagnosed. So the whole premise is tainted from the start.

Those traits/tendencies can co-mingle with all sorts of other diagnoses. i.e. Harmful behavior is not just corralled at the anti-social personality disorder diagnosis. (The baseline diag for a "psychopath").

So in vetting these psychopaths out you would inherently bring many more people who share similarities or over-lap in diagnosis.

It's just...a mess. I don't know how else to say it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't understand how this^ or that other post clarifies why "psychopath" keeps getting generalized into "mental illness". The reason I bring this up is because there are distinct differences between psychopathy (or APD) and depressive disorder, manic depression, schizophrenia, etc. The distinction is psychopaths systematically dehumanize people, the others don't. That's what little or no affective/emotional empathy is. Affective/emotional empathy is what stops other people from being nothing more than objects to use for our own ends. Where there's a lot of cognitive empathy, but not much or any affective/emotional empathy to tether down the cognitive empathy- you basically have a person who effectively knows how to say whatever it takes to convince people to go along with being used, to assure them their feelings matter, whilst completely objectifying them. Depression, manic-depression, schizophrenia, etc- doesn't do that. So generalizing and saying "mental health" instead of "psychopathy" for the purposes of this thread completely misses the point. The indignant reaction to the 'mental illness' side tangent makes clear sense to me (and I more than agree with it), I just think it's misplaced.

It might be just my own oversensitive INFJ sensibilities, but the (seemingly) excessive emotional reaction in this thread is confusing to me (might not be excessive- again, INFJ here, sometimes we can't tell the difference between someone's phone ringing and a fire alarm). I actually don't understand what's going on, all I know is that I'm a bit mystified by the indignant reaction to the 'depersonalization' of psychopaths.

But we already have that information. I guess we want some magic stamp of approval to do the work of relieving the public of some anxiety about future bad decisions. We must have a scapegoat!

It's not our collective decisions that are responsible for anything. It must be that candidates mental health! Yeah, that's what needs to be determined because then conflict and war won't happen. Or something. I don't know.

I'm also a bit mystified about how you pulled this from the exchange about the election. But it could hardly be less important. Moving on.

You speak of psychopathy but the way you are defining this or how it is being thrown about here is vague at best. The premise, while cute as a thought exercise, has built in ignorance of how psychpathic TRAITS actually are defined and diagnosed. So the whole premise is tainted from the start.

One of the things in this thread I can say matches everything I've read*, what makes a psychopath a psychopath is little or no affective/emotional empathy with high cognitive empathy. I just explained why that's a dangerous combination. (And I say "dangerous combination" because pretty much everything I've read uses a phrase just like "dangerous combination"- it's not just me being hyperbolic.) I'm confused about exactly what's being contested. Is the argument being made that it isn't a dangerous combination? That it's not always used towards ill ends (which is something I'd contest in return, if this thread hasn't already sucked exactly too many minutes out of my life)? Or that it's not really at least part of what defines psychopathy? That affective/emotional empathy isn't what stops other people from being nothing more than objects to use?


*which is more than simply Fallon's work- I mentioned that as the only source because it's the only entire book I've read about psychopathy. I've read a great deal about narcissism, in which psychopathy is brought up a lot in comparison- I assume the licensed psychologists and counselors who write these books are a somewhat credible source. I've also read Jon Ronson's The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry, which gives an interesting little history of the diagnosis and how vague the "disorder" actually is.


I agree that it has been vague. Honestly, the description nonsequiter gave matches most closely with what I've read and it would have been a good idea to find some comparable chunk of text somewhere and posted it in the op to begin with. It probably would have been best to simply ask how important people think it is for public leaders to have authentic affective/emotional empathy, and avoid the p word altogether. (And the word "test".)

But what doesn't help (and I'm not saying it's mostly you doing this) is simply getting indignant or righteous and throwing words like "ignorant" around without including very specifically what you're referring to and why/how you think it's incorrect. And it would help to cite where the information is coming from (because sorry-but-not-sorry, I'm not going to believe some nameless person over the internet simply because they're saying it's the correct information in a really hurt or accusatory tone, like it's hurtful to believe anything else- which actually makes a thing more difficult to consider). In all the reading I've done on the subject, I've never stumbled over any "psychopaths: we get the bum rap" editorials or such. So I really don't know where to start processing the strong emotional reaction in this thread, where that's concerned.

eta:

Those traits/tendencies can co-mingle with all sorts of other diagnoses. i.e. Harmful behavior is not just corralled at the anti-social personality disorder diagnosis. (The baseline diag for a "psychopath").

Okay, you're coming at this from a way, way more practical/realistic angle than I am (which is why the first time I read through this, the above registered like gobbledy-gook). I mean, this is like taking several leaps ahead/thinking about how to implement such a thing. It obviously can't be implemented. It's kind of pointless to nit-pick the reasons it won't work in practice because there are so many it's a no-brainer. That's why I emphasized 'thought experiment'.