Slashdot Mirror
Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
Dogers writes "Robert Hare, creator of the Psychopathy Checklist, has recently been applying his test 'Is your boss a psychopath' to businessmen and has found some disturbing results. From the article: 'Why wouldn't we want to screen them? We screen police officers, teachers. Why not people who are going to handle billions of dollars?'. Citing Enron and Worldcom management as an example, it seems a reasonable argument. The same source also has a quiz (magazine produced it seems) which allows you to test your own boss, too!"
Yes! Next question?
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I think that this could be the very first Slashdot thread composed entirely of AC posts.
Minus this one of course.
If Psycopathy has a genetic component, then has it survived natural selection. Surely in ancient times psycopathy would not have got you far. You'd likely be expelled from a society or likely killed.
It's too common to be a mutation because genetic diseases often have percentage rates of 0.01% or below.
It makes me wonder!
Simon.
Should we screen everyone then? On man's psycopath is aanother man's genius.
Although there are psychopaths out there- I had an internship where a boss of mine spend 10 minutes screaming at me for stapling something crooked.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
to basically earn your way through life by exploiting and berating underlings, some of which are inevitably of equal or even superior skill and/or intellect to you.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
So apparently I'm in the Be Very Afraid range. Remind me to never go into business for myself or I'll eventually kill the bastard.
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
God, it's one of those magazine quizzes that are entitled "Are you a homosexual? Find out" and the questions range from "Do you like women?" to "Do you like men?". I hate obvious quizzes.
Is he a con artist or master manipulator? Who would have guessed!
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
My last boss was the demon itself! There was a week when every single day someone departed from the job, you know 5 people in a week! If you someday find a colombian called Mauricio Roman that says he studied in MIT... run!
OK, this must mean that about 95% of politicians are psychopaths:
- glib and superficially charming
- grandiose sense of self-worth
- pathological liar
- master manipulator
- lack of remorse or guilt
- shallow
- callous and lacking in empathy
- fail to accept responsibility for his own actions
Yep, that's a politician alright.
Why do so many bosses suck?
Because those who desire the power should be the least likely to have it. I've had some good bosses, and 90% of the time they didn't really want the job, they just kind of grew into it over time.
Other times - whew. There was the one boss who, coming in the first day, told everybody that he wasn't there to be a friend, and he could fire the whole department at a moment's notice if he wanted.
5 minutes later I was dusting off my resume. When he found me dressing nice (so I could go on lunch breaks, which were really interviews), he told me he'd fired me if he caught me interviewing somewhere else. And he'd know, because he had "contacts" all over town who would tell him. "Contacts" who would call him and ask if I was applying somewhere. Private eyes - were watching me - they'd see my every move.
Oddly enough, I guess his contacts forgot to call him three days later when I quit and went to my new, higher paying, better hours job.
So if nothing else, I'm thankful for bad bosses, since they seem to be the greatest force in people finding new and better jobs. (Even though they suck.)
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Now I'm out of the academic world, and with perspective I can see what a shithole that place was.
[1] Is he glib and superficially charming?
[2] Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth?
[3] Is he a pathological liar?
[4] Is he a con artist or master manipulator?
[5] When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt?
[6] Does he have a shallow affect?
[7] Is he callous and lacking in empathy?
[8] Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions?
Now RTFM, and see what they scored. Honestly, I feel that any "good" businessman will tell you that without all of these traits, you cannot succeed in this world we call America. I'm not saying that I agree with the attitude, but really look at it, it seems obvious that a lot of bosses have this attitude. It's almost a "must".
Time is comparison of movement to other movement.
The Corporation
This documentary looks at a corporations from a psychologists perspective and finds that corporations are sociopaths
-best
-greg
The reason is quite simple.
Much of our history has been dominated by violence, and our ancestors are those who survived violent episodes. Either by being very smart, very cute, or very evil.
Psychopaths are overwhelmingly male and psychopathic behaviour is generally evidenced by the ability to hurt and harm others without the usual remorse and empathic pain that most people feel.
The reason why only a small fraction of people show this behaviour is because (a) it's quite counterproductive in stable societies, so quickly gets pushed into marginal genepools (the bad boys of any village), and (b) it has a large component of environmental triggering, meaning that many people (mainly men, again) can exhibit psychopathic behavour given the right circumstances.
Why are psychopaths so charming? Partly because it works well in conflict situations. Partly because it acts to deflect attention. Selection works at the gene level, and the charming psychopathic genes have survived civilisation much better than the pure violence ones.
My blog
Because if screening teachers & policemen for psychopaths has taught us anything, it's that it obviously doesn't work.
And secondly, are we to assume that if you are a psychopath you cannot do your job?
The faster we get this mess over with, the better. We should just start offering MBA's to the prisioners in all the "super-max" facilities.... That way, they could start being useful immed. upon their return to society. I can just see it now...."IPO to be offered upon parole"
To prove my point... http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5176
see the story about this guy, he's continuing to get paid WHILE he's serving 18 mos. for criminal offenses. The board kept him on because he's a "visionary" and "knows the business" the best!
See what I mean?
... you insensitive clod!
I'm self-employed, you insensetive clod!
On the other hand, it looks like I may fit the profile pretty well. Grandiose sense of my own self worth... check, check, check... I pity the poor fools who are working for me - fools who, also, are me.
You reminded me of one of my favourite Pierre Trudeau quotes (for those who don't know, one of Canada's most famous Prime Ministers).
Trudeau knew what Adams knew. The quote during his election campaign:
CBC Reporter: How badly do you want to be Prime Minister?
Trudeau (not missing a beat): Not very badly.
Imagine a politician today having the balls to say something like that... I'll end with another one:
"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there."
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Who cares if your boss is a psycho, when we work out why people who do all the work (manual labour etc.) get 10 times less money then the people who point and go "Get it done by next week" (managers). I think we'll be about ready to ask pointless questions like these..
I like muppets.
Read The Corporation and a different view might emerge.
The most dominant social system of our time is, by definition, psychotic. It is hardly surprising that individuals "become psychotic" as they work for these organizations. Indeed, if they did not, their jobs would quickly end: if sanity were to prevail when weighing social responsibility against profit, the decision--by corporate by-law a bad one--would damage shareholder value, and be grounds for immediate dismissal. The system guarantees that the inmates will run the asylum (and be praised all the way to the bank for doing so.)
All that is exceptional about Enron and Worldcomm is their excesses were exposed, not that their excesses occured.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
"Is your employee a whining crybaby?"
For each question, score two points for "yes," one point for "somewhat" or "maybe," and zero points for "no."
1) Does he/she frequently post on geek websites, complaining about you being a psychopath?
2) Does your employee hate Microsoft, IBM, the Patent Office, and/or does he feel that somehow his future is threatened by them?
3) Does your employee believe SCO may have a case?
4) Is your employee constantly whining about management decisions like purchasing a Microsoft Exchange server or cisco routers?
5) Did your employee get overly agitated when you decided to pay SCO for their Linux Licenses?
6) Does he/she often speak in a language uncomprehensible to human beings? using words such as "packet" "protocol" or "xfree"
7) Does he/she look frustrated when you make bold management decisions, such as assigning half the company to a research project about sending electricity over fax machines?
8) Is your employee constantly whining about not having enough time or resources in order to achieve his goals?
1-4 | Our condolences. Your employee may be dead.
5-7 | Be cautious about not approaching him.
8-12 | Be afraid of approaching him.
13-16 | Be very afraid of approaching him.
For each question, score two points for "yes," one point for "somewhat" or "maybe," and zero points for "no."
[1] Is he glib and superficially charming?
[2] Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth?
[3] Is he a pathological liar?
[4] Is he a con artist or master manipulator?
[5] When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt?
[6] Does he have a shallow affect?
[7] Is he callous and lacking in empathy?
[8] Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions?
1-4 | Be frustrated
5-7 | Be cautious
8-12 | Be afraid
13-16 | Be very afraid
--
make install -not war
Is he glib and superficially charming? - Is he a people-person?
Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth? - Does he add value to the company?
Is he a pathological liar? - Does he keep the investors informed
Is he a con artist or master manipulator? - Does he attract new business?
When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? - Does he have what it takes to thrive in a competitive enviroment?
Does he have a shallow affect? - Does he let his emotions control his business decisions?
Is he callous and lacking in empathy? - Is he able to place the interests of the company first?
Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions? - My personal favorite - Is he able to look at the 'Big Picture'
Yes, tis true. We are the future!
this is "geeks versus jocks" high school level of insight going on here
i'm certain bosses could have just as many checklist items of what to worry about psychologically in their geeky employees
the point is, taking the stereotypical and the shallow seriously is a hallmark of you having the problem
now i could be accused of not having a sense of humor, except i don't see a big monty python foot next to the article here
which means somebody is actually taking this claptrap seriously
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know it always annoys me when I see these two words confused. As I was taught, a psychopath cannot hide his mental illness. A psychopath is the person who crashes into McDonalds and starts shooting. Sociopaths are serial killers that manage to hide their predilections for years without getting caught.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Anti-Social Personality Disorder (formerly known as psychopathy) is a DSM-4 disorder that has a wide variety of presentations. "Psychopaths" is quicker to type.
Normally, people think of psychopaths as con-men and serial killers. These are the ones that are noticed by the system. What about those who aren't? These are referred to as "functional" psychopaths.
An advertisement, placed in newspapers and designed to appeal to psychopaths by presenting their features in a good light by saying they needed someone who wasn't tied down, loved adventure and excitement, etc., led to the discovery that there are many psychopaths out there.
These are people who are highly motivated by money or power, willing to take risks, view people as tools to be manipulated and used, and appear charming. Is it any wonder that bosses, politicians, and others are functional psychopaths?
But is someone truly a psychopath just because they have some of the traits?
Police and other public safety personnel tend to score high on the psychopathic deviancy scale on the MMPI (a standard psychological personality test), but not as high as the psychopathic criminals they must deal with.
I believe the inventory referred to in this article simply tests for psychopathic traits, or at least their appearance. Whether these folks are truly psychopathic would require far more in-depth investigation.
Some bosses are psychopaths. But some may simply act that way.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
This system is bunk. Its used to screen teachers?
I've had some pretty crazy teachers in my day.. It obviously doesn't work.
or does that occupation render them immune?
The problem is that most folks have a natural inclination to disbelieving that sort of thing, especially if it involves their own fearless leader.
The unbeleivability factor of it is perfect camoflage.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
That /. is going in. The only topic better than this one would be, "are women psychopaths?" Or, better yet, "women ARE psychpaths...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
I would laugh and agree with you, but I can't. See, I have taken the time to meet and actually discuss the real issues with these folks.
Yes, they come off to casual observers as being glib and superficially charming. But that is because when they are campaigning they are meeting literally hundreds and thousands of people a day. Try doing that and not acting glib. I saw an example of this last night. One of the people in our group complained about a recent decision by the city council. How many times have they heard this? I am guessing at least 10, maybe 20 times a day. Anyway, the one gal gives the canned, practiced response. How many times had she given this? At least as many times as she heard the complaint. It was a reasonable response, but you had to think about it for a while to understand the real issues. But to the casual observer, it was glib, superficially charming, and meaningless.
Politicians aren't generally liars or grandiose. Those are the ones you see on TV and read about in the paper. The vast majority of politicians only show up when it's election time, and they have to attempt to manipulate you to vote for them. All of them must make this rite of passage. The only ones that don't are those who are in appointed positions.
As far as callous and shallow, this is again a trait that the minority has. The vast majority, on both sides of the aisle, really care about what they doing and are pouring their heart and soul into their work. They can't care about everything, though. They can't even know about everything. So while you may see one at a funeral who isn't touched, remember that this is probably the third funeral of the week, and that they probably don't know the guy personally or at least to the point where they have become emotionally attached. After all, it's only politics, and if you become emotionally attached to people prepare for serious heartbreak when they endorse your opponent or turn on you after a bad decision.
Lack of remorse or guilt, and a failure to accept responsibility... I think you have to really get to know them and see the problems from their perspective. Sometimes, they knew there would be fallout, and they are prepared to accept the bad parts because they want the good part. So when those who are affected by the fallout come to complain, they are going to seem callous. Or would you rather have them say, "I knew this was going to happen, and you would be affected this way, and I made the decision regardless. It was a tough decision, but it was the best damn decision I could've made. And basically you weren't here to show us a better decision and it's water under the bridge now. I know you won't care about what I have to say because you can't see past your own problems, so I won't bother explaining. Just get it out of your system and let us move on to more important things."
But another thing you will see is that politicians, at the end of the day, are used and abused by their constituents. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people support a candidate only to turn on them moments later, only to support them moments later. It's a roller coaster ride, and the only way politicians can cope is to stay emotionally detached in their work. If there's crying to be done, it's done very privately on the shoulder of their spouse or very. very close and trusted friends. Otherwise, emotion can't enter into it. If it does, they will quickly become psychopathic.
I want to emphasize that there are a few psychopaths in politics, on both sides of the aisle. They probably aren't who you think they are and a few of the ones who you think aren't probably are. You will find them somewhat equally distributed throughout all levels of politics. Use the criteria, but apply it individually. And you must take the time to get to know the candidate personally. I tell you from experience that the local newspaper is abou as trustworthy as the pious gossip at your local church. If you base any of your opinions on what you see or read second- or third-hand, prepare to be misinformed.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
She seems to think most politicians are APD. She claims that it's what makes them good politicians. She cites Jimmy Carter as someone who's not enough of a sociopath.
If you think about it, that explains an awful lot.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
My software dev team worked for Atilla-the-dumb once. The guy was so afraid of loosing the mid-management position he had clawed his way to that he spend much of his time getting the team to fight with each other so he could step in to save the day.
We found his resume on the network drive one day, submitted it to Monster, Dice, and a few others. Withn a month he was all excited about his "value" and took another job.
That's what we call a win-win.
Cogito Ergo Sum
Anthropologically speaking, before about 6,000 years ago, ultimate authority resided in the nuclear family. Mom, and Dad, could independently decide what to do. Other people in the tribe, likely to be part of your extended family, could offer advice, and even beat on you if things really got hairy, but ulimately, they couldn't force you to do something that you really didn't want to. In some remote places this is still the case -- I recommend reading Napoleon Chagnon's work with the Yanomamo if you want to get a good idea about life with no ultimate authority to execute justice.
Then, once you have agriculture and food you can store and transport, you have people submitting to a stranger as an authority, pledging their life to them, and accepting their judgement as ultimate justice -- because if you don't, off with your head. These priest kings thought they were divinity on Earth, and the fact that they ruled over people was just the natural course of things, as surely as the sun moves across the sky. For reference, see the decription of any god-king. God-Kings got their place through the military, either rising to rulership, or usurping some family member in the throne. The person who would do best in this role is a psychopath.
Fast forward to modern democracies. Government isn't the domain of military leaders anymore, but supposedly more enlightened speakers who rule with the consent of the masses. Those psychopathic people now see their opportunity in business, where they can bully people in the privacy of offices and meeting rooms, and underlings live as undignified yesmen. Again, the people who do best as bosses are psychopaths.
Now, I'm not saying that all bosses are bad, or that all jobs suck. There are good bosses and enlightened companies, but the best bosses are psychopaths, and the companies that do the best are headed by people who can get their underlings to knuckle and do whatever they're told.
I've had two bad bosses in my short (15 years) time in the workplace -- after several fuckups and yelling matches, I've found out that these two bosses both believed that the rules didn't apply to them. One would berate us employees for not doing a good enough job following up on delinquent accounts, complaining about customers who refused to pay us, while he had creditors calling us constantly for his *own* delinquent accounts. As the company was running out of money, and we confronted him about late and bouncing checks, he told us it wasn't our place to call him on it. He believed on some deep level that it was very wrong for other people to owe him money -- but if he owed other people money, he should be allowed to slide. The rules just didn't apply to him.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Out of interest I was reading a book of samurai philosophy called "Hagakure" and I found a good amount of applicable advice in it. I forget the exact quote but the essence of one passage that really hit home is this: as a samurai, your honor depends on loyalty to your lord. But you have to realize, if your lord is a dishonorable person, there is no way for you to gain honor by serving him and you are better off cutting your losses. Turns out that applied perfectly to my psycho boss. I tried to work with her and all I got was fired. Should have quit when I had the chance.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I am just amazed at the number of people posting "That's what you want in an exec." or "That is how companies need to run to return value." Are we really that misguided as a society? Do the 71% of Americans who claim to go to church actually listen? (Or maybe they do not really attend). Not that church is a requirement for morality, but at least it should be a standard we can claim a measure against.
The problem is becoming more clear as I read the replies and see what is happening daily. We want ethical treatment but if the other person is acting unethical then heck, I should too. To those who would claim I am misguided, I would say they are. That it is just the way things work in the real world is because of people who go quietly into the dark, seeking nothing but protection for themselves at the expense of others.
That is what some of the executive who went to prison missed. They made a lot of people a lot of money, and most of them were probably not asking about the details. (For example, most of the get tough laws promised and passed by Congress were never enacted.) However, ethics is not something you do, it is something you are and it is binary choice. You cannot be "sort of" unethical or immoral. That is not to say you cannot make mistakes, humans do. However, to excuse behavior as a long series of mistakes makes you an accessory, not an observer. Part of the problem.
I'll see your half dozen communist dictators and raise you 100 US Senators. I'll hold onto my President card just in case you have any thing else to play.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
In American society, it seems like this kind of selfishness is a virtue Ayn Rand crap is increasingly becoming an accepted part of the culture. The crap that American is more successful because we have sociopaths running the government and corporations makes no sense. The Enrons and Haliburtons are draining our society and only bringing American down. Selfish politicians are killing the government.
People who subscribe to the philosophy that selfishness is a virtue need people who have a consciences to feed on. A world full of Ayn Rand sociopaths would not even be a place were Ayn Rand sociopaths want to live in.
I've actually worked with nice people in management positions. Even from the bad managers I've seen, the ways in which one can be "bad" at one's job are more diverse than being a psychopath or sociopath. Psychopaths do exist, they're not a majority.
Also, for a start, I don't think that berating someone is necessarily bad (much less a sign of being a psychopath). People make mistakes, or do something wrong, or whatever. _I_ make mistakes. I like to think a good manager would tell me when that's the case. (But don't blow it out of proportion, and don't forget the positive feedback too when/if that's deserved.)
I also don't think that "exploiting" someone is a crime. For better or worse, selling my work to a company is the way the economy works. A manager is there to manage and organize that process.
You can think of it as a necessary evil. Personally I don't even consider it "evil". If the boss is doing a good job of organizing things, that's less chaos for me to deal with, so that's actually improving my life.
And, anyway, if they do their job well, I see no problem with them earning a living out of that.
There _are_ ways to be an asshole about it, and yes I've seen awful assholes in management positions. But there are also ways of doing that job without being an asshole.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
First let me say that I'm in full agreement with the article. A great many "bosses" just shouldn't have that job.
On the other hand, as an employer and in the interest of fairness, it occurs to me that the same test could be applied to determine which of my employees are psycopathic with equally shocking results!
Let's just face it, the world is a wild and wooly place no matter which side of the fence you're on...
cheers.
Yes, indeed, he's a psychopath.
There was this great line from the first Red Dwarf novel. I can't find the exact text online, this is how I remember it. It takes place before the 3 million year sleep, right after Lister comes on board and Rimmer is addressing him and the rest of his shift.
Lister: I'd like to be transferred to another shift, sir.
Rimmer: Why?
Lister: With all due respect, sir, I think you're mentally unbalanced.
Rimmer: There's always one in every group, isn't there. One idiot, one loser, one psychpath.
Lister: Yes sir, but he isn't usually in charge.
Technoli
- glib and superficially charming
* seriously disgusting and offputting
- grandiose sense of self-worth
* Hate self so much they slash their wrists
- pathological liar
* Tells their brutal honest feelings, which are usually offensive or overtly negative
- master manipulator
* Can't manipulate anyone because nobody likes them
- lack of remorse or guilt
* Guilty all the time, they balme themselves, hate themselves
- shallow
* Over sensitive and over dramatic
- callous and lacking in empathy
* bleeding heart
- fail to accept responsibility for his own actions
* Accepts all responsibility for their own actions until they become the whipping boy
I don't know which is worse.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
According to most recent research, around 5% of all men and 1% of all women are psychopathic to some extent. And do note that being prone to physical abuse of others is not one of the indicators of psychopathy. All of the indicators of psychopathy measure emotional and psychological traits such as a lack of empathy for others.
One psychopath that I worked for was Barry Lewis. He would have screaming fits on the phone. After he refused to pay me for a month, he still wanted me to spend time working for him, when I told him that I'd gather what he wanted, once I received payment, he then started calling me about 20 times a day.
He was convicted of harassment. The ADA told me that Barry Lewis threatened him and some of the other employees of the court.
Fight Spammers!
You cannot expect someone to live in a stressed, hyper-rationalized environment which was conceived to make as much profit as possible, to be nice a care about others... Multinationals, as their name indicates, are not tide in one neighbor... so their are not influenced by social pressure as much as SMBs.
Besides, I would like to highlight that psychopathology/psychology is heavily influenced by our expectations as a society. Given a context, people should behave like that. Dr. Hare does that and creates a P-Scan-like form. However, during business hours pressured individuals forget their own values and act under the authority of their employer. Just read Milgram's experiments.
wake up! Don't judge actors only, but also contexts!
I was always under the naive impression that anyone in office was a sociopath who cared about power or money or whatever, and had therefore concocted a detailed plot to use the government and people for their own benefit.
Then I actually job shadowed a state senator for a day, sat in on a couple meetings and the general assembly... and I realize that they aren't (for the most part) psychopathic or plotting...
They're just... average.
And then I realized that the horrible state of legislation was not the result of malice, but of the pure incompetent that infects the entire society. These were the C students in high school who had the right connections, or just the right interests. They were the masses that I have spent my entire life trying not to disdain because they do not comprehend most complex issues as quickly as my "gifted" friends.
Heinlein once said (paraphrased) than an elected official, ideally, represents a slightly above average member of his electorate. I realized that day that when I consider my opinion of most people I meet, I am not surprised at all at what comes out of the capital. It is no hand-picked best of the best representatives, nor a oligarchy of vile schemers, but simply a vaguely representative group of the more affluent members of our society.
Unfortunately, I think that this realization made me expect even less out of government. An intelligent psychopath at least acts intelligently in his own interest, as opposed to blindly herding in whatever direction is popular today.
And why, pray tell, did you include Guevarra in your little list? (Hint: Read your own link)
Have you read his book on Guerilla Warfare? Intentionally putting innocent peasants in harms way and sacrificing them is an acceptable tactic. I guess that sort of info didn't come on the tag that accompanies the Che t-shirts that all the posers wear.
But then, I suppose everybody assumes politicians are psychopaths, so nobody cares.
Bush is a psychotic, dry drunk, typically Chistian hypocritical chimpanzee.
Latest word is the White House has "weather reports" among the staff each day to see if he's feeling good - or on some rage where he's likely to lash out at anyone around him. Shades of the Watergate Nixon White House.
Right now, since he's taken yet ANOTHER "vacation" at his "all hat, no cattle" ranch, where he's been forced into hiding by a mother who wants answers for his stupid, greed-and-power-driven policies, we can all expect another "terrorist attack" (read: Reichstag fire incident) in a few weeks, since reportedly all military leaves have been canceled from September into December.
Presumably the next victim is Iran.
It's not surprising he's supported by corporate types like Bill Gates and morons like Ah-nuld who generally show similar characteristics.
Not that Clinton was any better - as he once told Genifer Flowers, he was "born 17 and stayed 17. Hillary was born 40 and stayed 40."
And don't even get me started on Donnie Rumsfeld, a rambling, lying, arrogant, senile pissant who wouldn't be respected by the counter clerks if he was running a McDonald's in Podunk.
Still, you monkeys all demand that people respect these assholes, because otherwise you wouldn't know where you are in the primate hierarchy - which might cause chimpanzee anxiety.
Just read an article this morning quoting Henry Kissinger from Woodward's book saying how military men were all dumb, stupid animals to be manipulated for foreign policy aims, and stating how Kissinger used to dress down General Al Haig in front of the secretaries in the White House for alleged incompetence.
Primate politics at its best.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I work as an R&D director in a medium size software company. Some time ago we hired a very promising director. She immediately became close friends with our managing director. At the time I didn't see anything wrong with it. But changes were about to come..
There was a well liked and very good technical worker in my team. Only problem was his appereance. The director couldn't stand the way he was. He was fat, quiet and wore an old sweatsuit all the time. Technical guy was very content with his appearance and felt no reason to make any changes.
Just in few months she succeeded to turn the whole management board againts this guy. He suddenly became a lazy and unreliable worker, who created a bad athmosphere to the whole office. When I found about the claims, it was too late. I tried to stand up for him, but couldn't defend him. The director was too cunning and I was too naive -- although I'm not anymore.
That wasn't the only trick the she pulled, but it was last one againts me. I found out that only way to avoid those tricks was not to talk to her at all.
I don't want to make this story long by telling about the ways she acted or methods she used. You propably can image them anyway. It's all charm, but totally hollow.
Problem is that the director still works in our company. I have no tools to fight againts a psychopath and I don't want to risk my position by showing it what I truly think. To psychopath its all black and white, if you're not on their side, you're an enemy.
If you have any ideas, please let me know.
The truth is that we all possess the innate ability to suppress normal social behaviors and to engage in violence under "necessary" conditions. That is a proven survival trait. It is the basis of military training. However the psychopath may be miswired to suppress social behaviors too easily, or all the time.
And 72.4% of scientific statistics are false.
See how easy it is to make crap statistics up? This quote from the article is just beautiful:
'...Scientific consensus says that only about 50% of personality is influenced by genetics, so psychopaths are molded by our culture just as much as they are born among us...'
That's a nice neat package for one hell of a complex phenomenon like behavior. To say that its 50% nature vs nurture is utterly stupid from a scientific point of view. So if you only train someone as a psychopath 25% of the time you'll get only a 25% psychopath? At best the 50% statistic is a guess.
-- IV
http://www.LinuxMedNews.com Revolutionizing Medical Education and Practice.
The 8 traits that supposedly make up the "Corporate Psychopath" are actuallly very close inline with Pathological Narcissism. As a mater of fact . Grandiosity, Manipulation, Lack of Empathy and Affect are major keypoints in Narcissism. Psychopaths do not make good leaders, Narcissits do. If you want to know more about this then check out The Productive Narcissist: The Promise and Peril of Visionary Leadership by Michael Maccoby.
Part of the problem is that, atleast in the US, there is no recognized single disorder that covers psychopathic personalities. The most closely aligned, according to the DSM(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) is Antisocial Personality Disorder, which does share some traits with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but neither APD or NDP alone would qualify someone as a Psychopath. In the ICD (international equivalent to the DSM) there is a personality disorder covering psychopaths, as well as a couple other disorders that are closesly inline with psychopathic personailty, but most likely neither of those would apply to your boss. There is a reason there as so many different diagnostics and that they some time share traits, because each different combination of traits should be treated differently.
So please don't everyone go of thinking there boss is a psychopath because they are manipulative, grandiose or don't show any feeling or affect. It's a job, and it is those particular traits that most likely allowed them to get where they are.
...there are two places where you'll find true sociopaths.
The first place is in the sanitarium.
The second is in the boardroom.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
Questions taken from the Slashdot story: Is your boss a Psychopath?
How do you rate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? -- Questions for Questions:
Q: When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? A: Does killing people qualify as harming them?
Q: Does he lie habitually even though he can easily be found out? A: Does lying to start a war qualify as lying? A2: Does pretending that you have reduced the violence in another country, rather than increased it, qualify as lying?
Q: When he's exposed, does he still act unconcerned because he thinks he can weasel out of it? A: Does saying it's all fine qualify as being unconcerned?
Q: Is he concerned about himself rather than the wreckage he inflicts on others or society at large? A: Does worrying only about election results qualify as being concerned only about oneself?
Q: Does he use his skill at lying to cheat or manipulate other people in his quest for money? A: When both Bush and Cheney have a long history of oil and weapons investments among family and friends, does starting a war in the world's second most oil-rich country qualify as a quest for money?
Q: Does he cruelly mock others? A: Does George W. Bush calling his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, "turd blossom" qualify as cruelly mocking him? A2: Does giving people disrespectful nicknames qualify as mocking them?
Q: Is he callous and lacking in empathy? A: Does taking habitual risks with the lives of other people while driving qualify as lacking in empathy? A2: George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest A3: George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also, for stunts that were not something a sober person would find interesting. A4: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest A5: Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
--
If your government chooses killing as policy, expect others to choose the same.
No one else has a problem with this?
Are you the same group of people posting links to the EFF, and complaining about violations of privacy?
This might be surprising to some of you, but being a sociopath is not illegal. Nor should it be grounds for not getting hired into a job. Being a sociopath does not mean you will become a serial killer either, despite what hollywood tells you. 3% of all men, and 1% of women are sociopaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath/
If someone has the intellegence and ability to do the job, who cares if they won't cry when someone else gets burned? As long as they are a law abiding citizen, they should be able to live a normal life.
(Unless anyone with "mental disease" should be locked away)
No, they wouldn't, and since I do this kind of thing EVERY day, I have some experience.
More importantly, I suggested it as a MISDIAGNOSIS, which it could very easily be.
Linking to indicatiors has no bearing on how a patient presents, and if you had any experience, you'd know patients often intentionally hide their symptoms, leading to EXACTLY SUCH MISDIAGNOSES.
Also, if you knew anything about personality disorders, you'd realize that professionals are loathe to diagnose more than one at a time.
"if women were truly psychopathic, they would be diagnosed as such alongside the diagnosis of BPD"
This is just WRONG. Again, symptoms (especially in BPD and PPD) are INTENTIONALLY MASKED. I've seen many competent professionals fooled. Suggesting that they would figure out the correct diagnosis and apply it is incredibly naive.
I believe your rudimentary understanding of personality disorders could use some polishing.
Googles founders are not narcisists or psychopaths and they are doing just fine in competition with Microsoft.
A psychopath definately should not be boss, not because they run the company bad fiscally, but because they run the country into the ground to make the company successful. Having a narcisist is not much better if you want a clean environment and good health.
Do you think food companies give a damn about our health? They want us to have cancer and heart disease because its profitable. Do you think the government cares about our health? They want healthcare prices to rise above our limits and they dont want you getting drugs from Canada. DO you think doctors care about our health? They want to just sell the drugs the drug companies bribe them to sell.
Psychopaths are EVERYWHERE and unless we create some ethical standards for certain positions or even for getting certain degrees in college its not going to stop. If everyone who wants a masters degree or who wants to be a boss has to pass a psychological screening in the same way we have to pass a drug test I don't think there would be a problem. If we don't do this, then expect our bosses to destroy the world for profit because psychopaths do not care about the world, you do.
Also, once (if) the ruse is disovered, the patient usually leaves therapy.
A number of psychologists really dislike working with such people because of this tendency to bolt, and also because some of these people will make it their lifes mission to make the life of the therapist who unmasks them a living hell.
I also decided to rate George W. Bush on the quiz, and he scored nearly a perfect score of 16 as a psychopath. To be fair, Bill Clinton scored pretty high as well.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Between "terrorist", "child pornographer", and now "psychopath", people should be able to get anybody locked up they don't like. Those labels are just so much more convenient than the more traditional "witch", "Jew", "homosexual", and "communist"--even easier to apply and even harder to disprove.
Sure, it would be great if we could identify dangerous people before they can do harm. But centuries of experience with that have shown that giving government and society the power to label and lock up people in that way is even more dangerous than the people themselves.
I expect people to save up for themselves. Why do we feel entitled to retire at age 65 whether we have the means to survive or not? Social security was started at a time when most people didn't live to be 65 and very few lived much longer than that. I had a friend who's grandfather was still farming at age 80. He did it because he enjoyed it as well as that he needed the money because he refused to let the government pay for something that is his responsibility. I would rather keep my money and use it the way I feel I should. And that way is not social security, especially not its current design.
expect the government to spend itself into debt,
If you want the government to pay for all your expectations (and by the sound of it, you do) how do you want them to pay for it? To make up money out of thin air? To tax us all out the roof? I think a lot of programs need to be cut, and the budget needs to be balanced and the debt needs to be payed off. But we do that by reducing government, not spending more.
expect the cost of healthcare go continue to go up forever until you cannot afford it,
Insane. If we can't afford it, then who will pay for it? The upperclass? Fine I suppose. And then eventually healthcare providers will realise that there is a lot of money to be made by selling it to the middle class. And the trend will continue. But then, maybe you just read the news that is all doom and gloom. I see a lot of people in the medical field doing things for the poor. I believe in humanity, not the news-worlds view of it. At my University there was a group that just back from somewhere in South America which performed free dental services for thousands of people for free. Where was that in the news? It was in our daily campus newspaper, but didn't even make it into the local newspaper. It happens. I volunteer on occasion. Do you? If so, great. If not, shut up!
expect the poor to be tossed in ghettos and left to die, all around the world.
I'm looking at the poor here in the US and thinking, wow. I am technically considered poor by the standards here. I don't feel that way. I have food on my table and a roof over my head. When the rich get richer, the poor do NOT get poorer. There is no finite pie in economics. When the rich pay for things, who are they paying? The middle class. When they pay for things, who do they pay? The poor. So where does the money of the rich go? To the poor. Eventually. And as I aluded to before, some people donate their money and their time. This trend is seen in the US a lot. There are truly poor people here in the US, yes. There are much poorer people in other countries. I spent a month in the jungles of Vietnam back in May. Those people are very poor by US standards. They don't act like it though. they work. Hard. They have food on their tables and a roof over their heads, and it is NOT their communist (read socialist) governments fault that they have this. Quite the contrary. It is the governments fault they are hindered and held back.
Again, if you are actually doing something to reverse the trend, then I applaud you. If you are just sitting back and ranting then get off your high horse and shut up. The world is in a much better state than some may let on. There is a lot, and I mean a vast amount of a lot, of things we can improve upon. But rants like yours make it sound like we are in worse shape than any time on earth. Some things are bad. Let's improve it. Not just rant and complain.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
"People are, by and large, lazy and ungrateful shits." Right, that's Theory X. Fortunately, there is also a Theory Y
Carl Sandburg once wrote:
Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.' And the dusty gray stranger had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.'"
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Who's talking about locking people up? This is just about not letting sociopaths be in charge of other people -- in exactly the same way that pedophiles aren't allowed to be teachers. You don't let people do a job where they are extremely likely to hurt people. That's just good sense. No one has a right to be a CEO or a politician. Just like any other job, you have to be qualified -- and being a sadistic ass should be a disqualification.
> When the rich get richer, the poor do NOT get poorer
Is the "poor" class not growing larger while the middle class gets smaller? And, as another poster pointed out, money doesn't "trickle down" when it ends up going to other rich people who invested in stocks (which the poor cannot afford to do).
Collateral damage is _exactly_ harming innocent people intentionally, and measuring collateral damage is rationalizing that harm.
Of course, the guy could be more honest about his thoughts, because he didn't have to care about PR, but it's exactly the same thing, there are no substantial differences.
The US military bombed Baghdad, where inocent people lived, and now die. Just because they did it to "fight the terrorism" or "liberate iraq", and CG talked aout killing civilians to "free the people", it doesn't make the method any better. Kiling civilians is bad, of course, but it's very common, and most militaries, US included, do it strategically.
document on the Company comptroller's desk and since I can read upside down, I looked up at him and announced that I was quitting, effective immediately.
It was an announcement that we were to be saddled with a new head of IT who was getting the job because he sold us a bill of goods, had gotten us into a mess in the first place, (I knew he was the nephew of some muckity-muck at [censored]) and that he was starting on Monday.
I left that afternoon, with a letter of recommendation, (I was friends with the head of HR, only back then it was called payroll,) found a job that afternoon, and never looked back.
He didn't want the job and upon arriving he fired everybody, from the chief analyst who was a pleasant enough co-worker, to the data entry clerks.
I was already working for somebody else but all of the other employees weren't so lucky.
Sometimes the boss is a 'bungie cord' boss who gets parachuted in on you and when neither him nor you want him there, the results are just awful.
He was an idiot, an arrogant prick, a blow-hard, a bad manager, an incompetent and he was 'forced' into the job because he'd bankruped his own company so he had nothing better and the Corporate big-wig who'd made the mistake of buying his crap in the first place just couldn't admit it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Trickledown econonomics was discredited years ago. The money doesn't make it to the poor. Ever. It circulates among the middle and upper classes, driving up prices for the things they desire (property, say) and increasing the gap between rich and poor. Making the middle-class richer makes it harder for the poor to become middle-class; it makes it harder for them to move to a nice area, harder for them to get their kids into a good school, harder to get good health-care. Making the rich richer does not make the poor richer. Relativley, it makes them poorer. And they don't catch up.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Really? Even in the case where they bombed a restaurant because they thought Sadam was there? The odds that they'd hit Sadam were not that great, and they were virtually certain to hit someone innocent.
In what way is this not `deliberately putting innocent citizens in harm's way'? Because they didn't think of the consequences? At a certain point stupidity is no longer an excuse.
Reducing government is a great idea. Let's start by reducing government's power to concentrate wealth into the hand of a few, by revoking or greatly limiting the issuance of corporate charters, land deeds, inheritance rights, resource rights, copyrights, and patents. (Actually before that should be ending government's power to criminalize consensual behavior like drug use and prostitution, but let's stick with economic issues for the moment.)
The "social spending" that the right would like to slash is just an (inadequate) governor on the engine of state capitalism. Breaking the government power that enables the L-curve is a necessary prerequiste for eliminating these governors.
Which is the problem with economics - it does not correspond to reality.
All natural resources, and all human resources, are finite. Land or gold or the services of a skilled physician that I own, reduces the amount available to the rest of you.
Until economic theories that accept that we live in a finite world come to greater prominence, we're screwed.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You're arguing that no dictatorships exist which allow for free competition in the marketplace? Ever been to Singapore?