Hacker News Reader

I'm finding most of these posts to be deeply unsettling. Psychopathy is a mental disorder -- you guys are writing off psychopaths en masse as 'bad people', who cannot contribute to society at all. Consider if the submission piece is genuine: a guy with a mental disorder sought out help to curb any harm he might have otherwise done to others. That's a happy ending isn't it? Be cautious, sure, but let's not just take them as 'evil people'.

Anyway, reading these comments I'm reminded of a friend, -- Jake, shall we call him. Jake has severe autism, but he is an incredibly smart guy and an excellent programmer. He's of old age now. He's completely broken... and he says the reason he's broken is no-one ever saw him as a friend, only as a worker they could use. Every other business person saw him as a tool that could write good code, and not complain about a shitty (or no) salary. I got to know some of the people who'd employed him... they were... well, just normal people, they were not psychopaths. I'm betting that a lot of people who're right now commenting on this article, and calling him are evil are possibly the people who'd use Jake just like psychopaths supposedly use mentally normal people. The power differential of a normal, average human being and Jake is comparable to the power differential of a psychopath and a normal, average human. Psychopaths see the weaknesses that can be exploited in normal people; normal people see emotional weaknesses in Jake - and they realize they can make him do whatever they want to, and he'll be helpless and voiceless in the end with you having gotten what you'd wanted from him.

It's easy to either over-demonize or underestimate the nature of actual psychopathy if you've never encountered it. By definition, a pure psychopath feels absolutely no remorse, no guilt, and has an unshakable egocentric view that does not change. They're effectively intelligent rational agents without the natural mammal-evolved desire to benefit the group -- they only seek to benefit the self. They would stab you in the back both figuratively and literally without the slightest hesitation or emotional reservation, so long as they know the benefits to them sufficiently outweigh the risks.

You can no more teach a psychopath to be caring and empathic than you can teach someone with autism to implicitly understand social context and facial expressions. However, a psychopath will be thrilled to find someone who thinks they can "convert" them, because they can use this to their advantage.

On the other hand, I say some people over-demonize psychopaths though because they assume they're all on the extreme end of the spectrum and all with the same traits. For example, some autistic people can recognize facial expressions masterfully, but fail at other things. Similarly, not all psychopaths are alike or have the same motivations or methods.

If you read my post again, you'll note that I am admitting to the possibility that psychopaths can contribute positively to society, but only in as far as society arranges a cost/benefit system where positive contributions are rewarded more than negative ones.

However since there is really no scientific evidence a psychopath can truly change, you should not find it unsettling that we hold a non-scientific, subjective, anecdotal, and self-reported essay of change on the part of a psychopath with pessimism and doubt.

If they're rational agents, then they should understand the results of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, and understand that screwing people over doesn't pay, remorse or no remorse.

Aside from the fact that life isn't a restricted theoretical game theory puzzle and rational doesn't mean educated (thus aware of prisoner's dilemma), this would assume that the people they're screwing over are also rational actors and are capable of cooperating.

You don't have to be aware of the iterated prisoner's dilemma. My point is that as a psychopath screwing people over, you should realize that this strategy is suboptimal. You will lose out to people who do cooperate.

Oh, psychopath will play your prisoners dilemma. He WILL be the one to talk you into cooperation.

He will not attack you in public unless he has public on his side. Thats what makes a psychopath so horrible.

He will fuck you over then he will convince everybody else that you fucked him over.

Psychopaths are Varelse in emotional sense.

He fucks you over and that is eventually a non-cooperation in an even bigger iterated prisoner's dilemma game.

Unless you willingly let him fuck you in the ass again, then his psychopathic strategy will no longer work on you, and you will at least not cooperate, and possibly retaliate resulting in a net loss. In fact, this is extremely likely because it's in your incentive now to disincentivize him from further fucking you because you want to send the proper signal.

Iterated prisoner's dilemma is a highly idealized model.

How so?

For starters, it is a two player game. Secondly it will not always be crystal clear that you chose "defect" to your coplayers in the real world, since actions are subject to interpretation. Third, the real world is not a game of perfect information.

It is clear that you chose "defect" in the real world.. over time. It is in fact theoretically impossible to escape this consequence as time approaches infinity. Think about it, you are constantly leaving traces of you "defecting" and not leaving traces of not defecting. Eventually this catches up. This is also an example of the principle of karma, aka cause and effect. You can't escape fundamental effects of causes forever.

This whole thread strikes me as having a very strong 'us vs. them' mentality. The guy in his letter makes a plea that 'Psychopaths are just people.' and the general feeling of these comments is to completely throw this away and view psychopaths as a dangerous and scary group of people.

Psychopaths look at the world differently than we do, they are highly rational and self motivated, but that doesn't need we need to fear them, hide from them, avoid them, or try to lock them up. There are more ways to deal a person like this.

We don't need to fear a subset of people who subvert trust so willngly , destroying the base from which all social contracts are formed?

Highly rational and and self-motivated are not the only distinguishing features of a psychopath. And those are not the features, or the only features, that people are afraid of.

We do need to fear them when they get into positions of power.

I know it's not their fault and that they were born with it, but it still disturbs me. They don't have empathy or morality and I would consider that the definition of evil. Someone can still be a bad person through no fault of their own.

I've known a few psychopaths myself. It is interesting how they react when you make it clear you know all about their deception. I personally find it hilarious that they think they're able to dupe everyone they meet, but I also feel sad that it still works on so many.

It's hard though to differentiate true psychopaths from those who simply share a few traits. When I read about psychopaths, I tend to find common traits within myself. I can't tell if I'm a psychopath or not. Are those who desire power, control, and inflated egos always psychopaths? Or do psychopaths just happen to always have that in common? Regarding myself for example, I may dream big and make promises that take time to meet, but I'm not a liar and I don't actively manipulate people for selfish gain; and I do crave power, control, and prestige, but not for the sake of it; I just know that those three characteristics are required to make some kind of real impact on the world that truly improves lives; and I've come to realize that if I want something to be done, I can't always rely on others to do it, so being in a respectable position of power and control is almost certainly required. Does that make me a psychopath?

> I can't tell if I'm a psychopath or not. Are those who desire power, control, and inflated egos always psychopaths?

No. I, and I suspect most ambitious people, also desire power, control, and have inflated egos to some extent. Psychopaths are still human (though broken) and also have these traits, but since they lack other traits like compassion, generosity, etc., the former tend to show through more.

I have a problem with the whole notion that runs throughout this conversation -- the notion that psychopathy is a binary state. Everyone should do a mental find-and-replace of "psychopathy" with "homosexuality," and re-evaluate their views in light of the existence of the Kinsey scale.

One thing you can say about the human mind is that there's nothing binary about it.

Yes, very silly. Why's everyone talking as if "psychopath" were a clear cut, clearly identifiable category?

Usually the defining characteristic of a psychopath is an inability to feel shame, remorse, or empathy. If you catch someone with narcissistic personality disorder in a lie or situation where they've hurt someone and call them out on it, the response is usually bluster, a frantic attempt to shore up ego. If you catch someone with borderline personality disorder or just plain deep insecurity, they'll often deflate and get downcast. Catch a secure person and they'll apologize and try to make things right. Catch a psychopath and they'll react rationally to further their own interests - they completely lack an emotional response to hurting people.

hmm.. In some sense, a psychopath is someone who is perfectly cool under (social) pressure.

When a normal person gets into a dispute, they worry about saving face and moral obligations, instinctively comfort (or maybe attack) the other person, etc, in an "I-Thou" situation. But a psychopath just sees a dispute as an "I-It" situation, like seeing a puddle on the sidewalk, something to casually (or carefully) navigate around, or (in the worst case) plow through and brush off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber

Thanks for that explanation. That's a really effective way to look at it, I think.

Your story resonates with me and I notice we're both using throwaway accounts to share our stories (mine elsewhere on this thread.) Once you've had close relations with a full blown psychopath you'll never be the same again. There is absolutely no way to learn about the experience except to go through it. I still think about mine and want to pick up the phone sometimes and call him. Psychopaths can be everything you need from another person because they'll study those needs intensely to manipulate you to get what they want. It's hard to explain, like trying to explain a hit of crack to someone who has never tried it. Psychopathy explains con artists, pimps, cult leaders, and yes, even Steve Jobs to a certain extent.

> I suspect if it's one thing that scares a psychopath, it's being found out

No, that's a narcissist. Afaik psychos aren't attaching that much emotional involvement to their public persona. They might be annoyed if sussed out, but that's about it.

You might be right. I must admit the "fear" I thought I detected was subtle at best, and the word "fear" is just my attempt to assign a word to a response I hadn't seen in him before. I think a better way of describing it is he showed he was "unsettled" at a deeper level than I'd seen before, since generally nothing phases him.

Edit: BellsOnSunday: I'm responding in an edit because for some reason HN doesn't allow me to reply directly to your post.

"Deep, deep terror" does not imply "strong, outwardly expressed terror." By "deep" I meant it was well concealed, deep rooted, and rarely encountered whatever it was. If you replace the word "terror" with "unsettled loss of composure", the sentiment remains the same. The latter is perhaps more accurate, the former takes less words and is what first came to my mind when initially describing it.

Comparing

> There was only one emotion he showed when I revealed I knew, and it was terror. Deep, deep terror he was struggling to conceal.

with

> I must admit the "fear" I thought I detected was subtle at best

you seem to have got a bit carried away in the telling of your story (which sounds to me like a rather standard one of someone taking advantage of another in a business situation).

this person is characterized by being completely fearless (as is typical of psychopaths)

Everyone is afraid of something. Psychopaths are still people. If you believe someone is fearless, it's a safe assumption they either hide their fear (when they feel it) extremely well, or you simply haven't encountered it yet.

Psychopaths tend to fear negative consequences less than non-psychopaths. They are still people, but having less fear (not being literally fearless) than most is a defining trait.

They fear negative consequences less, or they fear social consequences less?

That is, are they less afraid of car crashes and drowning, or just less afraid of pissing people off (because they don't care about other's personal needs, and because they can easily "fix" a relationship with the advantages of deception)

Negative consequences; less afraid of car crashes and drowning. Which also means they have a harder time learning from their mistakes.

No, some people do not experience fear at all. It is not hidden anywhere. As scary as this may seem... lol

There are a rare few people that truly do not experience fear, but they have a damaged amygdala, which is rare and totally unrelated to psychopathy.

So, why the throwaway account?

Did you think about telling anyone or did you even tell anyone, so that maybe others don't have to go through the same thing you did?

For reasons I won't get into, after he was confronted, he did what I'd describe as "firing a warning shot", but in terms of social power. Basically it was his way of saying "Don't mess with me. I have influence and can destroy your life." Following that, I've been forced to take precautions in terms of carefully bringing friends into this knowledge, among other strategic preparations in case he "attacks" some day with his army of devoted followers. (Another trait of psychopaths I believe is the accumulation of a large network of followers, across which they can magnify and extend their influence far further than you could purely through 1st order persuasion.) I won't get into details, but posting this under my real account and therefore real name would be counterproductive to the precautions I'm taking.

Everything you said above checks out, my experience with a psychopath was similar.

> "Don't mess with me."

I heard this exact phrase, he said it right to my face. I didn't think at that moment that I'm posing any threat. Perhaps the guy overestimated me.

I'm actually surprised it would be said directly to your face. Obviously psychopaths are different, but the person I knew was very smart and knew not to overextend their influence unless necessary, and was very careful not to self incriminate. Saying "don't mess with me" outright to someones face is risky, especially if it's overheard or recorded. My case was much more subtle, more of a "show of power" socially which nobody else would understand except me, given the recent confrontation.

To me, it's far more dangerous to confront someone who is a master manipulator and expert at knowing how to do so subtly and undetectably, versus someone who throws around angry threats. The latter is almost harmless, unless it's backed up by the former.

Thanks for all your insight here in this thread. I went through all this myself and haven't really been able to talk about it. Its reassuring to see others have been through the same. My psychopath convinced everyone I had psychosis when I questioned her once. I refused to believe something that I saw her do was a 'hallucination'. For months I was gaslighted by everyone I knew. I would think I was in the clear and then a friend would call me up at work out of the blue, asking if they can take me to accident and emergency. I had 9 months depression and am only now getting out of it.

It is insane how memories can be overwritten. I can write at length on this, I learnt it from videoing her talking to me. They have total frame control and will keep switching subjects away from facts.

I never confronted her to tell her that I knew who she was, but she did warn me indirectly. She showed the 'psychopath face', if that means anything to anyone...

What does "accident and emergency" mean? A (mental) hospital?

It's what the ER is called in the UK.

> But beyond the terror you could see, there was nothing -- just pure cold and calculating rational self-serving thought.

Apart from his feelings he didn't have feelings? I appreciate you telling your story and I realize you were taken advantage of, and he treated you unquestionably bad, but painting this person as completly unhuman is not very helpful.

It seems to me that the things you describe here is an extreme end of human nature, but in way outside human nature. The best laws of physics are the one that are valid from all perspectives, so it is with the laws of human nature. Having a completly ad-hoc theory for someone elses behaviour is not emphatic or useful.