Slashdot Mirror
Psychopathic CEOs Are Rife In Silicon Valley, Experts Say (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: There is a high proportion of psychopathic CEOs in Silicon Valley, enabled by protective investors and weak human resources departments, according to a panel of experts at SXSW festival. Although the term "psychopath" typically has negative connotations, some of the attributes associated with the disorder can be advantageous in a business setting. "A true psychopath is someone that has a blend of emotional, interpersonal, lifestyle and behavioral deficits but an uncanny ability to mask them. They come across as very charming, very gregarious. But underneath there's a profound lack of remorse, callousness and a lack of empathy," said forensic and clinical psychologist Michael Woodworth, who has worked with psychopathic murderers in high security prisons, on Tuesday. According to recent studies there's a high prevalence of psychopathy among high-level executives in a corporate environment: 4-8% compared with 1% in the general population. This makes sense, according to Silicon Valley venture capitalist Bryan Stolle because "it's an irrational act to start a company." "You have to have a tremendous amount of ego [and] self-deception to embark on that journey," he said. "You have to make sacrifices and give up things, including sometimes a marriage, family and friends. And you have to convince other people. So they are mostly very charismatic, charming and make you suspend the disbelief that something can't be done." However, the positive attributes are accompanied by manipulation. "One of the main things that makes them extremely difficult to organizations is their willingness to manipulate through deception," said Jeff Hancock, a Stanford social scientist who studies psychopathy. "Psychopaths will handpick people they can use as lackeys or supporters, such as someone in HR they can have in their wheelhouse," said Woodworth.
What does this tell us about our economic system?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wow, I'm shocked. CEOs in Silicon Valley have similar characteristics to CEOs in NYC, Washington DC, and beyond. Where's the news here? Did many people really think that the most valuable companies in Silicon Valley are actually still being led by the people responsible for their initial invention(s)?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Am I the only one who has had more issues with power tripping HR departments than CEOs?
Why are the words "in Silicon Valley" in the title?
Politics is just another form of business; so it's very apt to manipulations of a sociopath. and the people that voted in cheeto is fell for it... HARD. Now they have too much pride to admit they got conned.
It is a well known fact that Steve Jobs had a secret button on his desk that released a trap door leading directly to his shark pool. Then, on a secret large screen television hidden in the wall of his office, he could watch the victim's last screams as they were torn apart by Great White sharks. Bill Gates preferred piranhas.
Silicon Valley is just the canary. This is more than a Silicon Valley issue, and frankly more than a USA issue too.
Have a look at what's happening in Canadian banks recently.
The Top 10 Jobs That Attract Psychopaths...
10. Civil servant
9. Chef
8. Clergy person
7. Police officer
6. Journalist
5. Surgeon
4. Salesperson
3. Media (Television/Radio)
2. Lawyer
1. CEO
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/01/05/the-top-10-jobs-that-attract-psychopaths/#76b38a9c4d80
you will never guess what happens next!
If allowed to continue unencumbered, one of these business psychopaths may even attempt to run for president one day!
I don't see it yet, but doesn't this remind you of a 'business leader' an CEO who recently was elected?
I wonder how many other presidents of the United states might fit that category. Theodore Roosevelt might be a candidate.
I'm not trolling however, I actually voted for the man. I suspected at the time and still suspect both he is a sociopath or psychopath of some kind.
I considered him a horrible option for president. Simply the other choice was worse.
Hey , whatever happened to 'embracing diversity'? Aren't these folks born this way ;) ;0 :)
Ok I might be trolling a bit now, but I hope most people get a good laugh from it
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Hillary was actually a grizzled hardass compared to Trump, who is an impulsive lolcow who runs on preteen boy emotions. Admittedly this may result in more aggression, but aggression is usually not smart.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's actually supposed to be Psychic CEOs are rife in Silicon Valley experts say. Like all psychics, they are great at talking rich people out of their money.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
...to start a real company with a real idea for creating value. But helps to be one if you're just a SV grifter looking to enter and exit with someone else's investment.
Here's what the deal should be: companies can do genetic testing all they want as long as it's always strictly against the law to employ psychopaths according to the genetic test.
You do better at business if you step on people along the way. You have to be a psychopath to step on people the most. It's that simple.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I never would have guessed. If these individuals actually had to work for a living they'd die.
Every time you may ask yourself "is that morally justifiable", the psychopath has already done it. And he doesn't even understand what to contemplate about.
Our system reinforces that behaviour. You're better off as a psychopath in such a position. Corporations are intelligence without conscience. The closer you are to this yourself, the better you function in such a system.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Care to explain the difference?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
and talking with them? A lot of so-called experts diagnosed Trump (from his public statements and behavior) as having malignant narcissism, but look where it got him!
In the noughties a lot of the finance types on Wall street were taking Prozac to be more aggressive. One wonders what drugs the executives in SV are on?
Psychopath, not sociopath. You needn't go out of your way to make the life of others miserable to be a good CEO. You just mustn't give a fuck about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
SV CEOs aren't hired to shoot SJW rainbows out of their assholes and hit everyone in the feels, or even to be nice people. They're hired first and foremost to MAXIMIZE SHAREHOLDER VALUE as quickly and efficiently as possible, and secondarily to achieve various strategic objectives (e.g., dominate their market) which are generally set by the shareholders and usually directly related to the achievement of MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER VALUE. Everything else in their worldview is generally irrelevant. Look back throughout the history of wealth -- this is how great fortunes have been accumulated again and again. There's time enough for charitable works and good deeds later on (through the shareholder's own tax-exempt foundation, of course).
4-8%, or to put it another way, 1 out of between 12 and 25, doesn't bring the word "rife" to mind.
All this is telling me is that there's a much higher percentage of risk takers in business than in the general population...shocking.
Just another day in Paradise
Psychopathic CEOs Are Rife, Experts Say
There. Fixed the headline for you.
In other words, why should Silicon Valley be any different?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Indeed, I could see Mrs. Clinton give the order to execute billions, but somehow I find it unlikely for Mr. Trump to do so.
Well, shit... I guess now we know what the fourth season is going to be about! I loves me some Silicon Valley.
And, of course, we *know* where the biggest, sorry, HUUUUGGGEEESST one of all is....
We have a class of people who:
1) Are law-abiding (even if they make use of every loophole in the book)
2) Widely recognized as leaders is a hyper-competitive environment
3) Not only survive, but thrive in that environment, and inspire others to excel as well
And the "experts" describe these people as having a disorder of some sort. They literally define business success as a mental illness.
If you define psychopathic as "only caring about me, me, me", I worked there. What they did do was drive away talent. I saw the best engineers leaving, one after another. I'm not so talented, but decided to follow their example.
Do remember that Faux "news" paid a fortune to settle harrassment AND was being investigated for criminal witness intimidation (until the Friday Night Massacre last week).
Psychopathy in the boardroom is a DESIRED trait by shareholders
Nothing but profits matters, anyone who has moral qualms has to go.
Proof of Harrassment?
As usual, none.
Proof that Hillary's employees died working for her?
none, of course
More smoke and mirrors from the right
Most people who claim that they have a mental illness, or have been diagnosed with and possibly given drugs for a mental illness, are in fact perfectly healthy individuals with these things we can't always control called emotions.
You would not believe the number of people that say bullshit like this to those of us who have depression.
May you never have to learn just how wrong you are.
Although I guess those are "ex-CEOs".
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Tell it to the judge that disbarred him for lying about the harassment.
Legal proof is _done_, yet Hillary and many others still defend him.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Fetal alcohol syndrome has visible signs.
The 'labia' (cleft in the lips just under your nose, not 'meat flaps') doesn't form. You can have some sympathy, while not putting them in positions where they can cause too much damage.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wrong
Clinton was NEVER disbarred. he did surrender his license for 5 years and NOT for harrassment.
Go ahead, I'll wait, prove that claim!
Legal proof is that you have NO idea what you are talking about
The paula Jones suit? Dismissed as "Utterly without merit"
I would have used the term "sociopath", not "psychopath", but many people don't see any difference between the two.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I always thought Sociopath was the more "normal" of the two.
especially when the law says they're beholden first to their profit making for shareholder value. I've also read in several places including a book about socio/psychopaths that they're more like 1 in 10 not 1 in 100.
Since when is starting a company an irrational need?? A company is supposed to provide a product or service that people need. So are companies themselves irrational? (Today-Maybe) But getting back to what a company is supposed to represent is a sane product or service that is supposed to make life a little better. As for CEO's themselves? (Not the company.) The psychopathic answer is yes. Just look at their perks, take home pay, and severance pays - You don't have to look too far, or too hard.
I have had the misfortune of encountering two psychopaths in my life. One rented a room from me and I worked with an occupational psychopath which is exactly what we are talking about here. It took me a long time to work out what they were.
This is because the tactics of manipulation they use is beguiling and confusing. You are never certain if it is you or what is going on. If they meet your friends they will manipulate them and turn them against you with lies of 'MrKaos said this or that'. They will turn all of your peer group against you until you are dependent on them and completely at their mercy. And there will be no mercy. You will be manipulated until you either have a nervous breakdown, which I nearly did, or you kill yourself.
For me the first psychopath was eventually exposed and responded by threatened me with a meat knife, twice, and other physical threats of violence. Now I am no push over. I was in my late 20s at the time and had about a decade of martial arts training to draw on. I knew as soon as that knife moved, my life as I knew it would be over. Instead of acting threatened I acted un-threatened, thinking that I would take that knife and use it against him, because that is what would have to happen. Psychopaths admire power. If you are powerful you can beguile them enough to escape, even temporarily.
After several attempts at physical confrontations he eventually tried to ambush me. As I avoided his pathetic attempt to hurt me I sidestepped his assault, hit him under the neck and, with immense satisfaction, drove his head directly into the concrete upon which he was standing, ensuring there was no bounce and he would receive the full damage of my defense. I told him that if he ever came near me again - well you can guess what I said. He didn't stop and it took several years of being harassed and subsequent court cases to get this motherfucker out of my life.
Several years later my second encounter was an OP when I worked for a large corporation you have heard of. I was gradually exposed, like boiling a frog, to familiar patterns of manipulation and confusing scenarios. Instead of being able to concentrate on my work I had to devote energy to defusing his tedious machinations, power plays and other things. Eventually he destroyed the career of my boss, who I was friends with before he came along and almost stressed a pregnant woman into a miscarriage. Psychopaths don't have to kill to get their supply of making people suffer.
I concluded this person was an OP when he described to me, back in 2004, how he used to torture small animals like cats and rabbits for fun. This disgusted me and horrified me at the same time because as he told me I realized, from previous experiences, he was doing this to gauge my reaction. He was using this story to attempt to brutalize and intimidate me.
I responded casually, despite my insides screaming 'get the fuck away from this guy', with a description of how my father taught me to hunt and maintain firearms. That he never let me hunt animals until I was a good shot and that when I did hunt, to aim for the heart or head and try to take the animal down with a single shot. I looked at him right in the face and said 'sometimes I would see a sick animal and realize the most merciful thing I could do was to shoot them right in the head', looked at the time, said it was an interesting conversation but it was time for me to go home. I was shaking when I got to my car.
When the OP could not destroy my work, he instead tried to destroy me, unlike the previous psychopath I could not get away easily. Eventually I escaped when I snapped an achillies tendon and was no longer able to perform the role. Despite the pain, surgery and two years to learn how to walk again all I could think of was how grateful I was to have escaped the OP's final destructive plans for me. Whatever they were, they were bad. Ten years later, he was still trying. My other colleagues, who I am still in contact with, also look back with fear and horror of wh
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I live in Sweden, and I can easily tell that you don't know jack shit about Sweden.
"Sweden" has become a right wing shortcut for how evil all Muslims/immigrants/foreigners are.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Trump ad libbed and thought on his feet (for better or worse)
That's a polite way of saying he made shit up as he went along. Which everyone realised, then still voted for him.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Most people who claim that they have a mental illness, or have been diagnosed with and possibly given drugs for a mental illness, are in fact perfectly healthy individuals with these things we can't always control called emotions.
Given the stigma attached to mental illness, I find it hard to believe that completely healthy people would go along with this if they had a choice.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's coming around again. There have been so many studies of sociopathy (Yeah, the term from the studies that started in the 1980s and not the current DSM) that you could walpaper the whole Smithsonian.
Most of them have some similar conclusions... couple sociopathic traits with low intelligence and you have serial criminals. Couple sociopathic traits with high intelligence; you have a CEO.
NRRPT/RCT
Supposedly Trump would be as welthy or wealthier if he had just put his inherited money in an index fund:
http://www.celebritynetworth.c...
"Depending on which figures you use, if he had taken that $40 million and put it in a simple index fund, he'd have about $3.4 billion in the summer of 2015 (not counting investment fees and taxes), which is in the same neighborhood as what he's worth now [assuming his public claims are accurate]"
Of course, that probably would have been boring to Trump...
Back in 2009 I started an email thread on "the psychopath as peer" on the p2presearch list, and here was a most insightful and cautionary comment by Andy Robinson about using the term "psychopath" to describe anyone (including, in this case, Trump) which amplifies on your concern about indirect diagnosis and labelling:
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net...
From: Andy Robinson
Mon Nov 2 16:17:58 CET 2009
I'd be careful with these kinds of classificatory schemas for other reasons
as well - they have a history of complicity in regimes of regimentation and
control, as ways of pathologising difference. While I'd be the first to
endorse the idea that there are real kinds of neurological difference in
cases such as autism and possibly schizophrenia, I'm sceptical of the idea
that real differences can be deduced simply by creating checklists of
"behaviours" or subjective stances. Most often it is a matter of old men
with beards sitting round in smoke-filled rooms deciding arbitrarily which
"behaviours" or subjective dispositions will be classified as "abnormal" and
hence included on these lists - hence the inclusion of such things as
homosexuality. We are never far away from the world of Soviet and Chinese
designations of dissidents as mad - and there have been cases of this kind
in Britain and Holland too. Today we have another sinister development in
Britain of the use of psychiatric testing to jail people "indefinitely" (for
life) for middle-level offences, on the grounds of the supposed risk they
pose. I actually know someone who had to argue with her psychiatrist to
avoid being classified as a psychopath (presumably she means ASPD?) on the
grounds of her political support for property damage in some circumstances.
Psychiatry mobilised as system of control - the opposite of what it should
be doing, which is protecting difference from persecution through
assumptions of sameness. A full recognition of the radicality of
psychological difference has drastic effects for ethical theory and
jurisprudence, amounting to an effective suspension of judgement due to
incommensurability of difference and intangible effects of unjust context -
something recognised in historic ideas of *mens rea*, but increasingly
resisted today.
The historical construction of the "psychopath" is problematic, because it
is clear from the studies of the "London Monster" that the *figure* of the
psychopath in popular imaginations precedes the actual emergence of serial
attackers of this particular kind. Also that the emergence of this figure
is closely connected to the rise of modernity and the alienated city in
praticular. Of course, the biological determinists will then revise the
historical record to attempt to reinterpret earlier instances of mass-murder
in the same terms - but the discursive status was quite different. Anyway -
it is clear that the social fears of the random stranger without social
ties, who will behave in a "predatory" way, arises from the disintegration
of social density in the modern city and the increasing frequency of contact
with people with whom one has no particular affinity or specific relation.
Hence the fear that such a person might be
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.