Hacker News Reader

Comment by jfmercer | Hacker News Reader

A member of my family is a retired psychologist who has treated many CEOs during his career. He once told me that "in [his] experience, most CEOs are sociopaths."

View on HN

Selection bias? Perhaps the non-sociopaths don't come for treatment?

There is rigorous empirical research showing that psychopaths are more prevalent among the successful.

"Studies conducted by forensic psychologist Robert Hare indicate that about 1 percent of the general population can be categorized as psychopathic, but the prevalence rate in the financial services industry is 10 percent.

These "financial psychopaths" generally lack empathy and interest in what other people feel or think. At the same time, they display an abundance of charm, charisma, intelligence, credentials, an unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation, and a drive for thrill seeking.

A financial psychopath can present as a perfect well-rounded job candidate, CEO, manager, co-worker, and team member because their destructive characteristics are practically invisible."

If they're invisible, how do the characteristics become known?

1. Researchers identify psychopaths using the rigorous statistical techniques of forensic psychology

2. Counsellors identify psychopaths based on a pattern of actions that lack empathy. A psychopath might be very "nice" when he meets you, but as soon as he can benefit by throwing you under the bus, he does so with no display of remorse. The lack of empathy is the defining characteristic of the psychopath--a non-psychopath will refrain from throwing someone under the bus because they empathize with that person. Steve Jobs fucked over his colleagues without remorse. Woz then gave them all money because Woz felt bad--Woz showed that he has empathy. Jobs showed he does not. This is why psychologists consider Jobs an obvious case of a psychopath.

3. Vulnerable people discover psychopaths due to the classic psychopath turn. When at a moment's notice the person you thought was so nice to you turns on you and you realize they were just using you. When they "turn" they go back on promises, they throw you under the bus, backstab you, generally fuck you over. Usually they do this by getting you to trust them first because they seemed so nice that you trusted them. This happens ALL THE TIME in the tech industry and if pg isn't aware of these cases he is willfully ignorant.

Because eventually you can look at a person and their history, zoom out a bit, and see the forest without the obstruction of trees. Sociopaths are effective manipulators, but don't form close relationships outside manipulation; they're impulsive and often irresponsible, which is why it's actually rare for them to be successful; when they are successful, you'll see a lot of individually maybe not-that-remarkable things blur together into a trail of broken lives left behind in their wake, and you can see how this person is truly not human, because they lack the most human thing of all -- empathy.

But, meeting someone for the first time, all you see is a charming smile, a warm handshake, and a nice, brilliantly intelligent person.

It should also be noted that many sociopaths also just end up in prison, because they're impulsive, don't care about others, and manipulate people, which can end very badly in most cases. It's not like sociopathy is a superpower; on the contrary it is a massive deficit. Most CEOs are not sociopaths, but the fact that the ratios are so screwed up is illuminating, because it tells us about our society more than anything else: we have optimized empathy, and the optimal amount is zero.

Although there are a certain amount of psychopaths that can be detected, I'm almost positive that there are a huge amount psychopaths who go through life undetected.

There is also research pointing to this--including research proving that non-agreeableness (which is the same as meanness) correlates with increased salaries and business success.

So pg is just factually wrong.

Pg seems to have some kind of fantasy that Jessica is a gifted psychologist. The truth is that she probably is when compared to other autism-spectrum programmers, but not when compared to professional cousellors or other people whose job it is to understand and empathize.

What Jessica considers niceness--"niceness for the purpose of making money"--is not going to be the same as what most people consider niceness.

The programming world scores high on the autism spectrum and on the psychopath spectrum. Compared to the rest of the world, programmers seem like very mean, cold, ruthless people.

Non-agreeableness is not the same as meanness.

PG is sharing observations based on seeing hundreds of founders succeed or fail.

>Non-agreeableness is not the same as meanness.

You are wrong.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others' motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are more likely to compete than to cooperate.

Do you have any actual knowledge of the Big Five psychometric scales, or are you just saying that because you want it to be true?

Disagreeableness is a scientifically validated and incontrovertible synonym for meanness.

Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate. In contemporary personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony. People who score high on this dimension tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Agreeableness is a synonym for niceness.

No, I don't have any knowledge of Big Five psychometric scales. I was going by the dictionary definition. And if I knew you were using a more technical term I would have looked it up, and still thought it was not the same as meanness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Agr...

The agreeableness trait reflects individual differences in general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others.

This is absolutely not the opposite of meanness. If Wikipedia is incorrect, please edit it. Note that unlike a YC comment, a Wikipedia edit will require a real citation.

Those were copy-pastes so you can easily google what I wrote.

Or just go read a book, textbook, or journal article on the big 5 system.

Source: I'm a grad student in psychology. Specializing in empirically keyed personality psychometrics (i.e. psychology centered on data analytics. I also have a BS in CS. I'm basically a "data scientist" / statistician)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com