Why do I feel like you need to be a sociopath to succeed?
I haven't been able to get this idea out of my mind that to be a successful CEO, you need to be a sociopath. Somehow it feels like decent people with decent products just don't make it.
Conversely, the master morality is adapted to being a master. A King may lie in diplomacy and betray allies and that kind of thing would be horrible in a peasant, but the King's actions might make his entire country better off and in a utilitarian sense that values only the King's countrymen - it may make everyone better off. But regardless of who is made better off by it the masters, like the peasants, have developed their own sense of morality, closer to ends justifying the means, because it is adaptive for them.
Names like "Master" and "Slave" make it seem like the master morality is the good morality or that the slave morality is bad. But I think those are just value judgments that come from the words. Nietzche says (to my understanding) that the truly noble person must move beyond either the master or slave morality and do what is actually right based on his own understanding and without regarding for the folk traditions of either class of master or slave morality.
Ultimately, what I'm trying to get at is it may be the case that your morality is adapted to being a worker-bee and the CEO's morality is adapted to being a CEO and so what the CEO does can seem sociopathic because the CEO is actually playing by a different set of rules or with different goals in mind.
When I play sports, I compete to win. I also don't try to break their ankles.
In business, I can see that if a business attacks your business in a breaking way, maybe you need to retaliate in same. But as a default? I challenge the concept that everyone who horns into a market is a rule breaker. They are a norm breaker, and that could be conflated with rules, but I don't think that's quite the same.
They would look at FB, Reddit and others and, naturally, want a piece of that pie.
Unfortunately, I think the better way to get funding would be to say:
* this is how we can capture as much data from the user as possible while convincing the user it is good for them
* this is how we can sell it to the highest bidder
* this is how we can make the user an addict
If Duckduckgo were trying to raise (assuming they had good growth metrics) and they said: look because people enter search terms we can generate targeted ads with no tracking, no dark patterns, etc. People value privacy a lot more these days (see FB tanking in value) and we will capture that market. I think a lot of investors would bite.
If your hypothesis is "look people would rather pay than be sold" and your product is a /paid/ social networking site with 50% growth MoM for a few months and great retention. Then great, let's hear all about it.
If you're just starting some generic product with no revenue and "no tracking no selling data no dark patterns" is some unrelated value prop that 0.1% of users (all of whom browse HN) care about. Then it's just a signal that your voice inside your own head is probably so loud that it'll drown out whatever the market is trying to tell you.
If my information is mine, then I have a right to do with it what I want, including giving it to a company so they can then sell it.
Just seems like you want to control how I am allowed to use my own data…
I think it’a a trait that’s actually needed. Genuily nice + smart + perseverance will get you far.
Making you think it’s genuine is part of the key of making it work.
The best people I know are nurses getting paid pennies to keep people alive. The world sucks. Sorry.
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/registered-nurse/...
"Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons. "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-p...
https://hbr.org/2004/10/executive-psychopaths
https://psychopathyis.org/stats/
The key aspect of CEOs that make for success is aligning people with vision and some measure of bravery to eschew "traditional" and "safe" to pursue that vision. That can be either because you are a master manipulator and driven by ego-mania, or because you are genuine and compelling and understand your industry, or both.
Physiologically, you should try to be tall, good looking, outgoing, confident, somewhat narcissistic, and infected with Toxoplasmosis.
http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/toxoplasmosis-entrepreneuri...
Frankly there is a shortage of companies like this, thats part of why you may feel this way.
This shortage makes it more valuable to operate with integrity.
Also it's just a much more fun way to live. What else are you going to do? Go around screwing people over all the time? At the end of the day you still have to live with yourself.
If you're looking for examples of this mindset I recommend reading Feynmann[0][1], How I Became The Honest Broker[2], and Various Diatribes from old hacker culture[3].
It's possible to play extremely hard and not be an asshole. It's called good sportsmanship. It's not required but it's entirely possible.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Cha...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/What-Care-Other-People-Think/dp/03933...
[2] https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/how-i-became-the-honest-brok...
You also have to be incredibly outcome-oriented. You need to prioritize a range of objectives against a mountain of constraints. Sometimes that means deprioritizing parts of a product or company mission to further the longterm success of the business, using the information you have. If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t be doing their job. Sometimes that also means deprioritizing people. This is why every leader will always be able to be portrayed as a sociopath.
The actual sociopaths are one or two levels beneath - those that are jockeying for good standing by pushing themselves up and others down. They rarely make it to the top and if they do, aren’t there for long.
In my experience, those who do not see this tend to hold different levels of either empathy or outcome-orientation.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/safe.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/mean.html
Here's a VC, whose main driving force is the rate of company growth, telling people that they benefit from being nicer.
I believe Sturgeon's Law applies to companies as well. The average programmer is pretty incompetent and paid terribly, but often not within our social groups. Most CEOs you have access to would probably not be hired by a good company; the good ones are likely outside our social circle.
The idea that only sociopaths succeed is an artefact of what we observe. And what we observe is driven by which narratives get turned into stories about business success, into hagiographies about politicians and businesspeople, and into folklore.
Everyone wants to talk about what a horrible person Steve Jobs was, nobody wants to talk about any of the tens of thousands of multi-millionaires who are running decent businesses, and who may not be saintly figures, but they aren't asking new hires to sign away their right to a bathroom break, either.
There's a really fantastic book I recommend everyone read about success, it was popular a couple of decades ago:
The Millionaire Next Door: http://www.thomasjstanley.com
It was recommended to me by a man who was a centi-millionaire at the time. He owned one car, a Volvo Estate, and his partner would drive him to the commuter train to his office in a building he owned and where he could easily have as many parking spaces as he wanted.
He was driven and very successful. I asked him if the money changed anything. He told me:
"Yes. We used to drive to [Grateful] Dead concerts and camp. Now we can afford to fly, and even take our friends."
The message of the book is that the reality of moderately wealthy people and business owners is very, very different from what sells copies of business magazines.
I believe that very strongly to this exact day. Also, I work for a CEO is is not a complete sociopath, so I'm up to n=2 for my experience.
He once stopped by my small apartment to pick up a document I wrote for a pitch or financing or something. He looked around at my furnishings, and said:
"This reminds me of the apartment we had in Montréal when we were still in university. We had some good times there."
Very much not a sociopath. Yet very successful.
Collaboratively Efficient Operators?
Treat contempt with disdain and help people learn to work together
Speak the truth you know and others accept. Use your intelligence to learn the wit of many. Let agreement build on argued decisions.
Don't rush
Read loads of Philosophy, we have loads of it and it's very common
Bowing to people is a good technique if sincere. Respect is a great way to begin a conversation
Delegate only that which you understand. This is difficult. Concentrate on the purpose of the responsibility
Consider everything else before yourself and then revel in your self
Don't be a sociopath
Another way to look at it is that most CEOs are optimists.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/11/15/optimists...
Cooperating may have net benefit but you'd get much further by being greedy while the others don't
The fact about reality is that there are lots of games, and if you choose a game which is zero-sum or even negative-sum, it's easy to say "This is just how the universe works." But nevertheless, that may only be true locally. If you go somewhere else, you may find that there is a game which is positive-sum.
It may not be a big game, it may not be the most popular or prevalent game, but what do you care? Each of us only needs to find one thing that works for us.
If you like zero-sum games, great, play them. But it's a choice, it's not forced upon us by the universe.
For example, in many businesses there's an "ecosystem." Within the ecosystem, companies are actually "frenemies," because while they're ostensibly competing, the more value is available in the ecosystem, the more it grows, creating more opportunities for everyone in the ecosystem..
I lived through the evolution of the personal computer ecosystem literally from the Altair to now, I've watched it in action. Ecosystems have both zero-sum and positive-sum characteristics. Mac versus Windows was a death-match, but being an ISV within the Mac ecosystem was very much a positive-sum game.
When I was selling my Mac classified ad software, I could have thought of every other vendor as a competitor for my customers' fixed budgets. But if I saw a problem and recommended some other software that solved it, they got more value out of their automation and would end up spending more money on me. Where as if they didn't get enough value out of their Macs, they would switch to WIndows and I'd have had to port my app to continue to serve them.
The same thing is true of working in a company. Yes, you're kind of competing with your colleagues, but at the same time, cooperating with your colleagues makes everyone money. So working as an employee has both zero-sum and positive-sum characteristics.
Maybe I misunderstand your claim, but as I interpret what you've written, I feel it doesn't match my observation. I really do think there are lots and lots and lots of things that are positive sum games in business.
Come to think of it, this web site is one of them too.
But if you define success by happiness, life satisfaction, family and friends, enjoying your work, and fulfilling your personal goals. That can be done more readily without going sociopathic.
> "Why do I feel like you need to be a sociopath to succeed?"
ok, you hooked me... lets see what you're talking about
> "to be a successful CEO"
Oh, well thats really only one very niche version of success. I personally can only think of a handful of CEOs that I consider "successful." They're really just managers, and we happen to be at a point in American history where they are very well compensated... historically this has not really been the case. Conservative (small c) argument: Name 5 successful CEOs from the 1930s. Now name 5 Successful Authors, Actors, Politicians, etc.
> "to be a successful CEO, you need to be a sociopath"
I would probably rephrase this as to be a successful CEO you need to be an "opportunist". Sociopathy is a mental illness that seems related to what you seem to be implying, but "sociopathy" exclusively is a bit narrow of a definition. If we were to say "all corporate managers are sociopaths" that would be very very prevalent.
> "Somehow it feels like decent people with decent products just don't make it."
I feel like you need more evidence to support this claim, and a more specific thesis. As an example per "The millionaire Next Door" most high net-worth individuals are just hardworking business owners that invest in income producing assets, and don't spend a lot. CEOs rarely make products unless they are a founder that becomes the CEO. CEOs as a group are corporate managers, and they usually become corporate managers by being trained to be corporate managers.
I personally don't agree with this take either. Too much anecdotal evidence on my side. CEOs, like the rest of the population have shortcomings, quirks, mental illnesses, etc. Thats just humanity.
There is an interesting interview with Brit Marling addressing some of these points about her time working at a bank (Goldman Sachs): https://duckduckgo.com/?q=brit+marling+goldman+sachs&t=ffab&....
Sanity is defined by people who want to control the masses. The world is very much designed to contain sane people. Or people who can work in the world are declared sane. Something like those.
Meanwhile sociopath engineer means you hate giving yourself to a group of people, and knowing your place.
That's fine because in the end, a week without a CEO may be damaging. A week without production is catastrophic. So when the rubber hits the road, it's the happy down-to-earth worker bees that produce the value the managers play around with.
Anyway, go for your dreams, kid!
I took a personality disorder quiz and scored high on everything except the dark triad.
Because of that quiz score, I’m worried that my earning potential is not as high as it could be if I was otherwise a high functioning psychopath.
I’m totally serious btw, any tips are appreciated.
Except where legally prohibited.
I should reread it since it’s been a few years.
Tend toward sobriety, debtlessness, marriage, and connection to a community of faith for joyous results.
in the bible, the devil had the power to offer Christ all power and riches of this world, which Christ refused
i think about that a lot
Which is why you need to make your product a little more than decent. "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." So be less dumb, and you can stay just as good.