Letter From A Psychopath

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/dh5l3q?share

by mannjani • 13 years ago

383 330 13 years ago

twitlonger.com

brickcap• 13 years ago

Great read. Thanks for sharing.

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

Interesting.

I would like to meet this person.

I find it very helpful to surround myself with people that have a different way of seeing the world.

sillysaurus24• 13 years ago

I would like to meet this person.

No, no no no no. No you would not. Not unless you mean it like "I'd like to meet a serial killer, just for the experience." Maybe it'd be interesting to get their point of view, sure, but you are far better off without them in your life. And certainly without having any form of relationship with them.

One of the main reasons this guy wrote this letter was probably self-aggrandization. The very fact that you find him more interesting is exactly what he wanted. That's not inherently a bad thing.

What's inherently a bad thing is that when human remorse and guilt have been genetically disabled, those people will do things to you which are fucked up. I have experienced the blunt, raw force of their emotional carpet bombing firsthand from a certain family member.

Everyone needs to remember that these people are hardwired to be deliberately manipulative, because they feel good only when you're giving them attention. Then they feel good only when you're doing things they've conned you into believing you want to do; sometimes things you'll feel shitty about for the rest of your life, once you snap out of it and realize you've been a puppet.

ama7292• 13 years ago

What's inherently a bad thing is that when human remorse and guilt has been genetically disabled, those people will do things to you which are fucked up.

Honestly, did you read the entire letter? Because he clearly address that point:

    Its true that I do not 'feel' guilt or remorse, except to the extent
    that it affects me directly, but I do feel other emotions, which do not
    have adequate words of description, but nevertheless cause me to derive
    satisfacton in developing interpersonal relationships, contributing to
    society, and being gentle as well as assertive.

beaker52• 13 years ago

Love is the kindest and most valuable thing we can spread in this world and your reply offered none to this individual. He is no less deserving than any other. We all have the same life sentence.

We're all trying to do our thing, he, you and I included.

More love, less hate. Please.

Taek2• 13 years ago

This is over cautious, and you use your own experiences as too much of an example of "this is what will always happen."

If you think of people like psychopaths and serial killers as fire, and your experience of getting burned (whether it was in your control or not), you might acknowledge that circumstances could be set up where a meeting with a psychopath could happen in a safe and protected way.

People who are very different from you (even dangerous) probably share traits with you that are much more exaggerated in themselves. Their experiences have analogs to yours, and even though they are fundamentally different from you they can still teach you a lot about yourself.

I would relish the opportunity to meet a serial killer. Would I meet him in a dark ally with no law enforcement or witnesses? Of course not, if I had any control I would avoid that scenario. If I had the opportunity to let a psychopath become an integral part of my family, I would reject that as well (not everybody has the luxury, I understand). But if we are meeting for coffee in a reasonably populated restaurant, I think the conversation could be very beneficial to myself.

Dangerous does not guarantee disastrous.

contextual3• 13 years ago

Pathological lying and manipulativeness are hallmarks of a psychopath [1]. It would be like befriending a spider - when you're the fly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist

kingkawn2• 13 years ago

These are justifications for not attempting to understand and thereby humanize him. These same sort of broad brush strokes have been used against any group of people that are deemed unworthy of being truly seen.

driverdan• 13 years ago

I have a friend who's a pathological lier and I've never seen any indication he's a psychopath. I've seen him go out of his way to help people many times and have never seen him try to manipulate others. Just because you have one condition doesn't mean you have the other.

calinet62• 13 years ago

I implore you—do not willingly bring a psychopath into your life.

BaconJuice2• 13 years ago

Can someone paste it on gist? Work proxy is blocking the site =/

itry• 13 years ago

Honestly? This is a question on hacker news? There are millions of ways to access a site via another site. W3C validator comes to mind. Or textmirror.net. Or browsershots.org. Or the Google cache. Or or or...

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

How is asking someone to paste it any less of a solution than any of those?

galaktor2• 13 years ago

To be honest, putting it on pastebin took me less time than writing a cynical response would have taken me.

S4M• 13 years ago

http://pastebin.com/vJcEkQxX

galaktor2• 13 years ago

http://pastebin.com/TTjWwuBZ

mike-cardwell• 13 years ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http:/...

Yhippa• 13 years ago

At one point in our evolution was there some advantage that being a psychopath conferred?

ahunt09• 13 years ago

at what point, I think, right?

tinco• 13 years ago

We have evolved to be born with lots of things balanced in slightly different way, one stronger, one smarter, one sweeter, one more decisive.

Every now and then someone is born with one of their balances in an extreme position. The genes that express the balance either missing or just heavily surpressed.

It is not necessary for every kind of gene expression to be beneficial to mankind in general, as long as the average range of gene expressions are beneficial to our survival.

tl;dr: A certain amount of variation in genes is beneficial to survival of our species, extreme variation (like psychopathy) is less relevant (unless a psychopath wipes out all of us, which is a commonly known weakness of evolution in general)

simonh• 13 years ago

Purely as a matter of opinion, the way to think about this is not as an advantage for an individual, but for as a gene pool.

Mostly a human gene pool's survival and prosperity is best served by community co-operation, mutual support and self sacrifice for the good of loved ones and other community members. Sometimes though, the group as a whole has had it and the route to the survival of any of the gene pool is for one or a few to sacrifice the rest and make an all-out bid for personal survival. E.g. a terrible winter in which there is insufficient food and everyone is starving to death.

Another situation where psychopathy could be useful is warfare. Sometimes having a cold blooded killer with no remorse on your side isn't such a bad thing.

Ultimately, it's a matter of variety. You never know what challenges your community is going to face, and what range of behaviors are going to be optimal. Having a full range of behavior types available in your community gives it flexibility in it's response, especially to to existential challenges.

berntb4• 13 years ago

I'm not going to rule out that psychopathy can have been a good thing in some society roles, but they do look more like shirking parasites? (An evolved strategy that is turned on sometimes, depending on environment.)

[Edit: Afaik, psychopathy is not turned on after someone reaches adulthood. An evolved strategy for catastrophes would be turned on at e.g. hunger or stress.]

I especially wonder if warfare is a good example? Most of the time when humans evolved we were in a clan society. Clan warriors aren't generally known for live and let live-attitudes to people from outside their clan anyway; a psychopath would probably not stand out much in blood thirst. (And if you are in a war party, you really really need to trust the members in the party. Manipulative people would not last long when they were caught at it.)

philwelch2• 13 years ago

You're looking at it the wrong way I think. Human culture (yes, even including warfare) only works with instincts towards cooperation. But once that culture exists, individual actors can succeed by essentially hacking those instincts to their own benefit. Evolution doesn't work to the collective benefit of entire gene pools--it works to the benefit of an individual's own genes. Within a population, divergent strategies can both be successful.

happimess• 13 years ago

Based on this account, I imagine that being a psychopath confers some advantage for just about our entire history as creatures that can form and execute plans.

Being a sincere participant in social groups has probably provided an advantage for just as long, if not longer.

ama7292• 13 years ago

Don't necessarily think in term of advantage, but rather in term of probability it will stay in the gene pool.

If psychopathy is genetically linked to say, a better resistance to cold or hunger, then it might stay even with the disadvantage of psychopathy, just because people with it will survive better.

cLeEOGPw• 13 years ago

Ability to easily identify weaknesses is huge advantage at all times. Inability to feel guilt and remorse is huge advantage in hostile environment. This came into disadvantage just recently, when world started to live mostly in peace.

mimiflynn• 13 years ago

There is a lot of variety in humans at all times, and not all of the traits that comprise this variety have been at a large enough advantage to become the norm. Since psychopaths are not the norm (as far as we know) it probably means there has not been a point in our evolution in which this trait was an advantage enough to propagate.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

At one point in our evolution was there some advantage that being a psychopath conferred?

Yes, and there still is. Evolutionary survival is not about living long; it's about passing on genes.

Psychopaths are great at reading people and exploiting emotional weaknesses. Humans are not naturally monogamous, and psychopaths are perfectly equipped for high-frequency sexuality. They've had Game for millions of years.

wrongc0ntinent3• 13 years ago

Absolutely. Not only this, but in many of our power structures (ones where human potential is not a metric) there are obvious benefits to being a psychopath, thereby maximizing exposure and potential gene transmission.

wpietri5• 13 years ago

For those interested in a great sci-fi look at that question, I recommend Thirteen by Richard Morgan.

enkephalin• 13 years ago

robert sapolsky has some very interesting things to say, regarding the societal benefits of conditions like schizophrenia and ocd. this video of one of his lectures is quite fascinating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEnklxGAmak

VladimirGolovin7• 13 years ago

When you have a lot of sheep around, evolution is bound to come up with a sheep that feeds on other sheep. For such mutants, having 'social camouflage' is a critical trait, because otherwise they would be losing to normal sheep due to their tit-for-tatting.

As for the advantage, it seems pretty clear to me: higher chances at being the alpha-male(female?), plus the resource advantage due to not having the ability for reciprocal altruism (and the ability to get away with that).

All few human psychopaths I have personally met were natural-born leaders. One is now occupying a high-level position within a successful company that produces manupulative F2P games. Another was a woman who, despite her being deaf-mute, was able to organize a successful remote web studio (before it fell apart due to her politicking and other members, including me, bailing out).

Also, quoting Wikipedia: "In Mongolia alone as many as 200,000 of the country's 2 million people could be [Genghis] Khan descendants".

Edit: if I remember correctly, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene discussed cheaters (that is, individuals who didn't reciprocate) as being a viable evolutionary strategy, as long as they are in a minority.

circlefavshape2• 13 years ago

I feel compelled to point out that evolution didn't actually some up with a sheep that feeds on other sheep. Sheep are herbivores.

mcguire5• 13 years ago

Keep in mind that natural selection does not select for traits, it selects against them. The first question you need to ask is not, "is there some advantage?" but rather, "what are the disadvantages?" Not all traits exist because they are advantageous; many may persist because they are not particularly disadvantageous.

The second thing to keep in mind is that many traits form a spectrum (particularly psychological traits). While the endpoints of the spectrum will likely be very problematic, there may one or more areas in the middle of the spectrum which are advantageous. Furthermore, it may be advantageous to have a variety of the trait in a population.

kansface4• 13 years ago

Behaving in ones best interest to the detriments of society could be quite rewarding for the individual in a number of circumstances- consider competition for food, resources, and mates.

dmoney2• 13 years ago

Think of it this way: You use your favorite social site, interact with friends, colleagues, acquaintances, or family members through it, and to a large extent it determines what interactions happen between you. Somebody saw how people previously interacted and how (or where) they wanted them to interact, came up with this system, and promoted it until it became popular. Things we've taken for granted at various points in history--moral systems, religions, monarchy, democracy, the nuclear family--were invented in the same way, by people who saw the system as an object to be manipulated, rather than reality itself.

ctdonath2• 13 years ago

"the director of the agency finally took me on herself, and to our mutual surprise we got along extremely well."

Birds of a feather?

livingparadox• 13 years ago

That was my thought, actually.

baq• 13 years ago

more like forged letter.

GhotiFish• 13 years ago

more likely, he viewed that person as a someone holding a position of power, and just did what came naturally.

JonSkeptic• 13 years ago

It is also the case that, being 'normal' takes a degree of energy and conscious thought that is instinctive for most, but to me is a significant expenditure of energy. I think it analogous to speaking a second language.

Sounds about right. I thought it was pretty 'normal' to feel this way sometimes...

LaGrange5• 13 years ago

There’s an old psychiatric joke: there are no healthy people, they’re just not diagnosed yet.

I’m not a psychopath, but I have high levels of social anxiety and probably high functional Aspergers. Every situation I didn’t rehearse in my head is incredibly exhausting, and even then, if it gets too complex I feel the urge to withdraw — and it doesn’t matter whether it’s a jerk coworker being a jerk or someone I like dropping a compliment bomb on me, or even, if I’m not the best shape, a partner being affectionate.

We override our deficiencies, but it’s tiring.

Carlee2• 13 years ago

I had a teacher who worked in a psych ward. She insisted that everyone has a trait of each mental issue you could name - you just don't get a diagnose until it's a big enough issue for the person.

pbhjpbhj• 13 years ago

Interesting - my social anxieties exhibit themselves mostly in when I have time to think about it then I "psych" myself out.

If someone calls me on the phone then I can have a good conversation, palpations and sweating aside. However if I have to call someone then unless I do it immediately whilst suppressing the desire to think about what I'll say I go to complete mush and procrastinate my way to distraction. Mainly it's one-to-one I have a problem with.

Havoc5• 13 years ago

I thought it was pretty 'normal' to feel this way sometimes...

I'm guessing you're an introvert, right? It seems to me that most introverts experience social situations as "draining".

jseliger• 13 years ago

If you're interested in what life for such a person is like (or if you might be one!), check out M. E. Thomas's Confessions of a Sociopath. I wrote about it here: http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/summary-judgment-co... and Tyler Cowen wrote about it here: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/06/con... and elsewhere.

FWIW, from what I've read (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...) there were (at least) no therapies or treatments that reproducibly help psychopaths:

The psychiatric profession wanted little to do with psychopathy, for several reasons. For one thing, it was thought to be incurable. Not only did the talking cure fail with psychopaths but several studies suggested that talk therapy made the condition worse, by enabling psychopaths to practice the art of manipulation. There were no valid instruments to measure the personality traits that were commonly associated with the condition; researchers could study only the psychopaths’ behavior, in most cases through their criminal records.

And now there are, at least in the sense of reducing criminal behavior:

In a landmark 2006 study of a specialized talk-therapy treatment program, conducted at a juvenile detention center in Wisconsin, involving a hundred and forty-one young offenders who scored high on the youth version of the checklist, Michael Caldwell, a psychologist at the treatment center and a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, reported that the youths that were treated were much more likely to stay out of trouble, once they were paroled, than the ones in the control group.

But note that the linked article is from 2008. Perhaps things have changed since.

circlefavshape2• 13 years ago

I thought that the ME Thomas book read like a work of fiction. The drowning of the possum right at the start - cruelty to animals being one of the stereotypical psychopath behaviours - smelled strongly of a creative writing class to me

sliverstorm7• 13 years ago

Is cruelty to animals part of psychopathy? Or simply a behavior that can develop unchecked due to psychopathy?

mcguire5• 13 years ago

You might also want to note that there are many different versions of [staying] out of trouble.

prawks• 13 years ago

Exactly what I thought. Especially given the above quote:

researchers could study only the psychopaths’ behavior, in most cases through their criminal records

It's a fascinating disorder, really, in that the most severe cases are difficult to detect so long as they do not make mistakes.

Havoc5• 13 years ago

Be warned though ME Thomas' book is not particularly well written, so unless you are specifically interested in this I'd stay clear. The style is similar to the letter from this thread.

Havoc5• 13 years ago

no therapies or treatments that reproducibly help psychopaths

This depends largely on one's idea of "help". Nobody is going to cure psychopaths any time soon, but I'd be surprised if one can't (reproducibly) help them channel their drive into something productive.

abhididdigi• 13 years ago

This is a very good article. Thanks for this.

This explains - What makes a difference, if someone diverts their energy doing something Positive. As they say - It's not who you are, but what you do that defines you.

Serial Killers & Ruthless CEOs exist - Voldemort does not.

Excellent ending to a great article.

mcguire5• 13 years ago

Does it enhance or detract from the article that Voldemort may be the one writing it?

anovikov• 13 years ago

The more i read about phychopaths is that they are normal guys/girls and it is the society's problem to 'treat' them (because they are too strong competitors and shall be neutralized) rater than their own.

jerf2• 13 years ago

If that were true, we'd all simply be psychopaths, the genes would have long since won. There are important reasons why humans are empathetic, have guilt, concern for others, etc. It is unlikely that psychopaths could ever form a civilization on their own, for instance; one could make a utilitarian argument in favor of behaving the proper way, but without the shortcut of having your brain simply wired to work that way it's going to be an uphill battle.

(Which goes back to one of my drums I beat here with some frequency, which is that while the rationality of humans is often overstated, so is their irrationality... many putatively irrational things like "guilt" or "empathy" in fact exist for reasons, or if you prefer, have significantly more positive effects when considered holistically than a naive analysis might indicate.)

TausAmmer• 13 years ago

Take stick and poke anthill so it gets rebuilt.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

That's exactly how they see it, too.

(I'm not trying to be pejorative. It would be my job to prove that you're objectively wrong, and I can't.)

I think psychopathy, like all of these disorders, has a spectrum. But if it's a natural condition, it doesn't deserve the moral weight affixed to it. Not all (natural) psychopaths do bad things, and most people who do bad things are not psychopaths.

calinet62• 13 years ago

That may be the most efficient and logical way to treat them, but it doesn't mean they're "normal" in any sense of the word.

saalweachter• 13 years ago

Defectors must be punished.

A lot of nice things in society depend on cooperating actors not taking advantage of each other. Psychopathy is defecting on society.

mcguire5• 13 years ago

Keep in mind: if you don't know who the patsy is, you are the patsy.

psychosurvivor5• 13 years ago

What you say is true only if you believe in amoral survival-of-the-fittest. Psychopaths are unconcerned with notions of truth, justice and fairness.

kristofferR4• 13 years ago

Everybody should turn on showdead in the settings and check out losethos' comments here. Psychopathy is really interesting and fascinating, but so is schizophrenia.

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

Like many other mental disorders, schizophrenics alternate between total detachment and relative sanity. Also, many schizophrenics maintain their full intellectual horsepower even when affected.

Schizophrenics can also go into remission late in life (after 50) and reach a point where, at least with medication, they're relatively unaffected. Spontaneous remission isn't common with SZ but it does happen.

peterwwillis2• 13 years ago

Thing is, in their mind, they're not rambling. They believe they are saying something intelligible. They have thoughts, sometimes mixed up, and feelings, and try to express them - but something in the delivery smashes it to bits. So the interesting thing to me is how you can read these ramblings and actually extract feelings and intentions from them, even though they make no sense. Usually it's very sad and lonely.

michaelochurch4• 13 years ago

Do you think schizophrenics know of their condition, or are they clueless that there's something biologically wrong with them?

To me, that seems to be the hallmark difference between hypomania and "real" mania, and what makes the latter more dangerous and scary-- the loss of insight into the condition, or that there even is anything amiss.

mikeash2• 13 years ago

There is a fascinating internal logic underneath it all.

I had a schizophrenic guy send me regular e-mails for about two months. For reasons still unknown to me, he decided that I was the one person in the world that he could trust.

The first e-mail was very short and looked like spam. It was a brief note about how the death of some professional wrestler wasn't an accident. Then they got longer and longer, and finally he started writing his messages out by hand, scanning them, and e-mailing me the scans.

This revealed something really interesting. He was scanning these things at work. He had what appeared to be a regular 9-5 office job at a large company, and he managed to keep a lid on things enough to hold down that job while writing pages and pages of paranoia to me and scanning them on the office multifunction machine.

The most interesting/amusing/sad part of all of this was a single handwritten page sent a day or two after one of the multi-page manifestos. It said, paraphrased, "I screwed up when I sent you that last e-mail. After I scanned the note, I tore it up as I always do, but this time I wore my glasses. I believe they read it." Evidently, this fellow believed he was under such pervasive surveillance that they (whoever they were) could see things through his own glasses. The elaborate procedures he went through to send me notes were apparently worked out to circumvent this stuff, but they required good operational discipline which he couldn't always handle. Or something like that! It clearly made perfect sense to him.

After a couple of months, I tracked the guy down with the help of some friends and got in touch with the local police so they could check on the guy, as he was clearly getting worse and I didn't think he'd be safe. I didn't hear anything after that until a couple of months later when a brief e-mail arrived from a relative that basically said, "Sorry about him hassling you, he's back on his meds now."

So, a happy ending, I guess. And certainly one of the most interesting things that's happened to me online.

PavlovsCat4• 13 years ago

I find it sad rather than fascinating, wish I could hug the guy. I know this isn't the time or the place, and that I could probably not help anyway. But still, every time I see a post of him with that greyed out font saying "move along, nothing to see here" gets me right in the feels. When some sports star or programmer with family dies from stupid or natural causes or commits suicide, we are upset. When someone is obviously unhappy and unable to successfully interact with others, we are annoyed, instead of being happy they're at least still alive.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to ramble. I have no criticism or suggestions to offer, just vague frustration and helplessness. But it does frustrate me, it's something that's been on my mind a lot of times, so thanks for the opportunity to say it, FWIW.

crimsonalucard• 13 years ago

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-unburdened-mind/

read it.

I think people are taking this the wrong way. A psychopath is not someone who is suffering a heavy mental disability who you should hug and comfort. Whether the personality type is a disorder or an innate talent/ability is up for debate.

A psychopath is a cold calculating personality type unburdened by empathy and certain emotions. These types of people are generally portrayed as super human by hollywood. Classic example: James Bond.

kristofferR4• 13 years ago

It is (ironically, considering the topic at hand) one of the worst phychopathic tendencies of society. We care the most about the people who need care the least (celebrities), but we dislike the "annoying liabilities" who really needs care.

When people stop providing value and start requiring value instead, their perceived societal value drops dramatically. In a way it's completely logical, but it's also really heartless.

ambiate2• 13 years ago

I've actually kept up with most of his comments throughout the years. I think he has a handful of other usernames. I know there is TempleOS. If you read between the lines of the crazy/racism/religion, rarely, he has very interesting points.

JimmyM• 13 years ago

I've actually spotted him on other sites, usually commenting with a Facebook account. He actually gets some interest, some responses, some upvote-equivalents to his answers on other sites.

This is especially true when he is in racist mode, unfortunately.

I hope there is some way he can get help.

rch2• 13 years ago

I was under the impression that the operating system generated the comments. Terry reads between the lines as well.

throwwit• 13 years ago

IANA(Psychologist) but I always thought it might have something to do with memory consolidation, that normally happens during sleep, running wild. You can see some themes in the writing, and some semblance of recent news stories. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200903/a...

kybernetyk• 13 years ago

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

AFAIK some of his comments are auto-generated. Markov chains from the bible.

vectorpush• 13 years ago

Let's all prattle on about the guy as if he isn't an active member of this forum. The man can read you know, most developers can. I'm not trying to censor discussion but it just seems a little odd to publicly deconstruct this guy in every mental health thread like he's some type of lab specimen. It is indeed possible to read comments while hellbanned.

ghotli• 13 years ago

This. A billion times this.

habosa• 13 years ago

+1. He can read these comments. I don't care what your mental state is, seeing it discussed on Hacker News is never going to help.

pndmnm• 13 years ago

If you'd like to read a community actually interacting with him rather than hellbanning him under the rug, check out this Metafilter thread: http://www.metafilter.com/119424/An-Operating-System-for-Son...

Long, but worth the read.

krapp• 13 years ago

The relationship between this community and losethos seems very strange to me. Perhaps because this is the first community i've been involved in where hellbanning was a feature. Any other site would have banned him outright for his own good but the hellban encourages him to continue posting. The result is almost as if he's treated like a mascot, or some brilliant but obstinate child being actively ignored at the adults table.

We know he's there, he surely knows he's hellbanned, and he knows we know he's there. He's both the best and worst argument about hellbanning as an effective form of moderation.

dhimes2• 13 years ago

Honestly, I don't know what I'm looking at without someone to explain it to me.

munificent2• 13 years ago

It boggles my mind how anyone can write such nonsensical rambling comments while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch.

Comments like this show exactly how poorly our culture handles mental illness. Imagine if someone had said, "It boggles my mind how anyone can be deaf while at the same time coding a 64 bit operating system from scratch."

He isn't stupid, he's schizophrenic. Aside from his disease, all of his other faculties are as fine as yours and mine.

kristofferR4• 13 years ago

That's not a fair example at all since hearing doesn't have an obvious relevance to coding, it's a mostly mental/visual activity (+ the physical activity of typing the code).

Schizoprenia on the other hand impacts the exact same faculty that is the most important one for programming, the brain. I don't think it's ignorant to be fascinated over how his illness so severly impacts his though processes while writing (and living), but apparently not while coding.

criswell• 13 years ago

I haven't been this fascinated by something in a while.

zafiro17• 13 years ago

Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-written piece I've read on the internet in a long time. Imagine what things are capable when "being different" causes you - and enables you - to reflect deeply and thoughtfully on what being normal really means.

psychosurvivor5• 13 years ago

I'm generally viewed as a "nice guy" but once when I was younger met a psychopath who viewed my "niceness" as a weakness and took it upon himself to destroy me. I retreated from that battle, but from then on learned to identify such people and try to match wits with them. I'm very competitive and couldn't stand losing to them. I out-witted several of them over the course of my life and they would usually leave me alone when they knew I would fight back. Fortunately, there are not a lot of true psychopaths running around. However, I finally met my match recently later in life, in a former prison inmate who ran had run his cell block, who had intelligence, charisma, and a breath-taking ruthlessness. He had fooled everyone on his release that he was reformed and had obtained employment where I worked. I did battle with him and lost because I was not willing to go his lengths. Good does not always over Evil, as we all know. I had to get as far away from him as I could. The experience was traumatic in some ways, and I say all this to recommend you avoid psychopaths whenever possible. It's not worth it. A true psychopath is beyond redemption.

burgerBath• 13 years ago

how do you spot a psychopath? what are the usual traits you looks for? How did you do battle with former inmate?

psychosurvivor5• 13 years ago

With regards to the last guy, it was an experience unlike any other in my life

I transferred into his location so I was new. He took it upon himself to be my friend and mentor. The first few months were fine. I go along with everyone and did a good job. This was his information gathering phase. I'm an open person so he learned a lot about me before the red flags went up.

He slowly began praising me, saying I was uniquely qualified for the job and the other guys weren't doing it right. He and I would show them how it was done. His charm and intelligence won me over and I was very flattered.

Simultaneously, he began turning everyone against me, making me dependent upon him. Feeling isolated, I found myself drawn closer into his orbit. I began suspecting him, but I found myself drawn like a moth to a flame to his charisma, praise and intelligence.

He had all the people in positions of authority fooled, so they trusted him. He began telling them without my knowledge that I wasn't very good at my job but he would look out for me.

If I deviated from what he wanted, no matter how small, his punishment was severe. I went to the authorities about this but they just shrugged their shoulders.

When I realized what was going on and being a computer person (this was when I was taking a break from a programming career), I managed to delve into the computer system and show with facts how he was cheating and how I was actually doing as well or better than the others. He responded by convincing them my computer skills were dangerous. They restricted my access to the database. He received a minor punishment because he was popular.

By cheating (and actually breaking the law in some cases) he managed to receive outstanding performance reviews. When the big bosses came to town he was recognized for his outstanding performance. He made sure to tell them I was a basket case that he was trying to bring along.

I began asking around about him. I found out he always wore long sleeve shirts to hide his prison tattoos. I foolishly thought I could fight him, so I found other ways to bring his cheating to light. This went no where because the other employees and management were afraid of him.

When he couldn't beat me outright, he enlisted a confederate to sabotage my work. With my guard up, I became very adept at justifying my work and proving I wasn't in the wrong.

I began noticing how he faked emotions. For example, he was essentially humorless, but he could fake a laugh that when you thought about it, was obviously fake and looked maniacal.

I became worn out, depressed and sick. I left the company. They all thought I was a "nice guy" and said they liked me and I believe they meant it, but thought it was to bad I wasn't up to the job. This was his end game, for the simple fact that he liked the company to be short handed so he could collect more over-time. I believe he actually liked me, but he liked the money more.

To answer your question: The psychopaths I've met are charming, intelligent, popular with people in authority. They get a free pass that others get punished for. You'll see how they cheat but never get in trouble for it and notice how other people are afraid of them. They have a way of working their way into control of any situation. They are very dominant, but in a charming way. They are usually what is called the 'alpha male.'

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

Programmers (me included) are intrigued with psychopathy: we like the idea of pure thought, unencumbered by guilt, untainted by emotions, conventions and niceties. But paradoxically we overromanticise it in the process: I am pretty sure that living day-to-day with such condition kinda sucks, and that it seldom leads to notableness or notoriousness, let alone self-improvement or any kind of refinement. A serial offender petty criminal is probably more representative of the 'average' psychopath than the author of this post, I am afraid.

theorique3• 13 years ago

If I understand correctly, the IQ distribution in psychopaths is not different from the population as a whole.

So, the 130 IQ (+2 sigma) psychopaths are probably intelligent and self-aware enough to hold their "evil" tendencies in check and to succeed.

On the flip, the 70 IQ (-2 sigma) psychopaths probably do not have the self-insight to understand "why" they feel the way they do. Their impulse control will be much smaller, and they are much more likely to indifferently hurt people, commit crimes, and act on impulse.

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

Quoting from Wikipedia: 'Additionally, studies suggest inverse relationships between psychopathy and intelligence, including with regards to verbal IQ' (but later it's stated that such correlation is not unanimously accepted).

I think we mostly are in agreement; I think the impulsive and antisocial tendencies of the psychopath are often self defeating and only the very intelligent navigate life successfully. We end up having a selection bias because we are likely to cross paths only with the latter subtype, so we end up believing that all psychopaths are superintelligent and verbally dazzling, while probably the majority of them is badly dull.

easyfrag• 13 years ago

Jon Ronson's audiobook version of The Psychopath Test is the Daily Deal today on Audible.com for 2.95

BaconJuice2• 13 years ago

Do you have it? if so do you recommend it?

dmuino• 13 years ago

I've listened to this audiobook and I was hooked very early in the story. Jon Ronson is a very good story teller and he narrates his book. He's quite funny and engaging. "A Journey Through the Madness Industry" is the subtitle, and "journey" is indeed a very adequate description of what you'll experience with this book. Jon wanders from place to place where he'll meet psychopaths and people who work in the "madness industry" and relates his experiences and thinking.

It's not a definitive treatise on psychopathy, just the adventures of the author as he dives into this fascinating world. Definitely worth getting it at this price.

trendoid• 13 years ago

Brilliantly articulated. I think this might be useful for everyone :

"The test of their self-superiority is their ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it to its fullest potential.

But that is not to say that this aspect of a psychopaths world view cannot be modified. These days I see weaknesses and vulnerabilities as simple facts - a facet of the human condition and the frailties and imperfections inheritent in being human."

6d0debc071• 13 years ago

... Am I the only one who interprets this letter as an attempted sympathy exploit/attack on people being properly on guard against psychopaths?

jgg2• 13 years ago

No, I'm laughing at all the people in this thread who think that this person in sincere (if they are actually a psychopath at all). People are a means to an end to a psychopath...

ak39• 13 years ago

Fair enough, but to what end, in your mind, could this author be attempting to exploit our empathies for?

javanix• 13 years ago

I think the interesting thing is how it is literally impossible to judge his sincerity.

For all we know, he could have given us a 100% spot-on description of psychopathy, or he could be lying through his teeth - without experiencing his life, we have no way of knowing the difference.

I suppose this is possible for /any/ self-description of the internal state of a human mind, but this particular condition obviously muddies the water to an extreme degree.

yannk2• 13 years ago

You assume the author is a male.

squigs252• 13 years ago

Many of the best venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have psycopath-like tendencies.

Think about the similarities. A good entrepreneur/venture capitalist should be:

-Ruthless, selfish, unsympathetic

-Capable of manipulating, good at acting, great at selling a concept and convincing others to drink the kool-aid

-Unfazed by negative outcomes

-Unaware of (or at least, unfazed by) social norms and the status quo

-Creative, capable of thinking radically differently than everyone else

I've seen this comparison a few times, and now I can't seem to find any of the articles that I have read.

gelutu• 13 years ago

Psychopaths are devious not creative.

squigs252• 13 years ago

I guess I consider those traits to be one and the same at their root, one just has a negative tone.

In my mind, everyone who is devious is creative, but not the other way around.

asmman1• 13 years ago

So, you're saying big businessman like Warren buffett are too?

yurgeni2• 13 years ago

psychopaths hate weakness they will attempt to conceal anything that might present as a vulnerability [...] ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it

There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

For example, compulsively manipulating other people is more properly regarded as a weakness, I think. Whereas getting up on a stage and being open and vulnerable in front of a crowd, that's strength. It can inspire people and produce lasting change.

People with heavy streaks of psychopathy, or narcissism, or whatnot, are on a different path to the rest of us. It's better to avoid them where possible, tempting though it is to hope they will eventually acknowledge their faults and apologise. However, not having access to various feelings is going to create straightforward problems in their lives which can in principle lead to private acknowledgement and progress being sought. So I refuse to regard them as incurable cases

wrongc0ntinent3• 13 years ago

There seems to be confusion about what constitutes 'strength' and what constitutes 'weakness' in regard to human personalities (or 'hard' vs 'soft')

This here is the crux of the matter, and we only stand to lose if we go on with all the hyperbole and analogies around psychopathy. The value and consistency of what constitutes "weak" and "strong" depends to a large extent on the feedback we (and "they") get in everyday interaction (whether they live in a city or grow up around Baloo the bear). Burying psychopathy down to some exclusive and immutable genetic level is to ignore this (I'm not talking about causes here, but about behavior reinforcement and motivation).

yurgeni2• 13 years ago

Yes. Another reason I think we can call sociopathy a weakness is that, as with all evil, the actors are thoroughly deceived about their own motives. This makes them especially maddening to those who catch on and falsely assume that they could make a straightforward choice to behave differently

Pompky5• 13 years ago

I have extensive experience w psychopaths. They have almost destroyed my life given my vulnerability to them because of a mother who is a psychopath and a father who had major psychopathictraits. I had to seek nurturance from a snake and learn how to feed it and placate it while trying to stay alive.

richardlblair• 13 years ago

Amazing and fascinating. His state of consciousness is so very different from ours. It is his reality. I'm so happy he shared this.

tomstokes• 13 years ago

Perhaps the most fascinating part of this letter is observing people's reactions to it. In the letter, the author goes so far as to admit that s/he is and always will be a psychopath without a sense of guilt or remorse toward others and a keen ability to recognize and exploit weaknesses in others for his/her own gain.

Judging by the comments here, the letter has done just that. One comment below notes that "Jeez, that's the single most interesting, insightful, and well-written piece I've read on the internet in a long time." Others are expressing a desire to meet the author or expressing how they can identify with the author. It's incredible to see just how effectively this letter resonates with the people who read it.

Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the author was able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to make therapy work for himself in an effective manner. I don't want to downplay his accomplishments. However, it is still interesting to dissect and observe all of the persuasiveness of the letter and the fluidity with which the author transforms psychopathy from a very difficult personality disorder into somewhat of a super power that the reader can't help but envy by the end of the letter.

As you read the letter and experience strong feelings of empathy for the author, consider his own poignant words at the end: "In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy."

The letter begins with the psychopath distancing himself from the traditional destructive psychopathic traits in the most admirable and self-aggrandizing way possible: He went against all odds and admitted himself into treatment, where he claims the health agency had never seen someone of his nature walk-in before and he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking therapist to handle.

He continues by setting up various straw-man caricatures of psychopathy ("cartoon evil serial killers" and the CEO who prizes profits over people) and knocking them down one-by-one, leaving the reader feeling guilty of possibly embracing those stereotypes at one point. With the reader feeling a bit guilty, empathetic, and as if the author's condition is simply misunderstood, the author has set the stage to rebuild the reader's view of psychopathy in a way that benefits the author.

Toward the end, he even goes so far as to put words in the reader's mouth just so he can turn around and undermine the very caricature of a psychopath he suggested you might hold : "Such as statement might tempt you to say 'well obviously you're not a real psychopath then'. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain."

The rest of the article explains the author's psychopathy the way the author wants you to view it: As "a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning." He goes on to say that he "enjoy[s] a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct." At this point, the author has completely distanced his psychopathy from the purely negative caricature he painted in the first half of his letter. Who wouldn't be envious of such incredible, valuable, and morally-neutral abilities as he described them?

I've read the letter several times over, and I'm still amazed at how effective it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a great struggle. And it's true that overcoming your own objections to seek, and stick with, treatment for such a severe personality disorder is both impressive and admirable. His points about the general public's misunderstanding of true psychopathy are equally true, although he crucially omits any and all explanations of how psychopathy can actually be dangerous and destructive to others. It's an incredible piece of writing, and incredibly persuasive and manipulative in a way that I'm sure PR and marketing teams everywhere would be jealous of.

VladimirGolovin7• 13 years ago

It's both impressive and admirable that the author was able to not only admit that he needed therapy but to press on long enough to make therapy work for himself in an effective manner.

If it's true, that is. Pathological lying is a part of Hare Psychopathy Checklist. The entire article may well be totally made up.

kbenson2• 13 years ago

While I can't dispute the wisdom of being leery of a manipulator, I can't help feeling sad for anyone in a situation like this that actually does change. If you expose yourself as having a penchant for manipulation, how can you ever truly break that stigma. It's similar to the brain in a vat problem.

sneak• 13 years ago

This comment sort of reads like Ash describing the alien to Ripley. I like it.

dhimes2• 13 years ago

I upvoted this because I also was sucked into watching those flicks again recently as they are playing on one of the premium cable channels. I didn't mean to do it- they just grab me. For the milionth time...

hootener2• 13 years ago

What's brilliant about this letter is how easily I stepped into it. C admitted to possessing the abilities to be a master manipulator and exploiter of weakness; and I still let C manipulate me into thinking exactly the way he/she wanted me to by the end of the letter.

It was the literary equivalent of the cup-and-shell game. I saw the con happening right before my eyes and still got duped. Brilliant writing.

(Note: I refer to it as a con, but only for convenience. I don't think it's necessarily negative to leave the reading thinking exactly what the author wants you to think. The process C undertook for doing so was simply so well constructed that it didn't dawn on me that I was being expertly manipulated until tomstokes pointed it out.)

throwaway832946• 13 years ago

You have no idea. I was "friends" with someone for years, who at the time I didn't know was a psychopath (over time I realized they met literally every item on the psychopathy checklist). The manipulativeness, the ability to lie completely sincerely (I bet a lie detector test would show absolutely nothing), and absolute and utter lack of remorse is terrifying, in a way.

The most striking thing, in retrospect, is the manipulative talent they have, and how relentlessly and patiently they are to go for the "long con".

In my case, I happen to be very talented at programming and computer science. The psychopath (who has no particular scientific talent) I refer to found me, and basically befriended me and over time convinced me to work some 100+ hour weeks on an entrepreneurial project building prototypes. This would ordinarily be fine if the profit was split evenly, but only in retrospect did I realize the disparity of my persuaded reality from their distortion field versus actual reality -- i.e. this person took 100% credit for my work, and was sure to leave no evidence that I did anything so there was nothing I could do.

But that's not even the persuasive part. The persuasive part was when I brought this up with my "friend", saying "hey so I noticed you're taking complete credit for this with no mention of me" or something of that sort. I don't even remember the details, but this person masterfully diverted attention in such a way that I found it not important, and thought about other things.

Ultimately over time, I noticed all the little disparities (lies, deception, hints of absolute lack of remorse) and had a pretty good suspicion that this person was a psychopath. It was only when I caught him in a completely undeniable lie that it all exploded.

The excuses given when confronted were pretty impressive at the time, but I'm not stupid, and it was pretty clear he was struggling to come up with answers when confronted. The strangest thing though was despite me having hard and undeniable evidence, to this day he would refuse to admit the lie, and in fact tried to convince me to apologize for slandering him (despite him knowing very well I have conclusive evidence).

Then I let on I knew he was a psychopath. The change in personality was dramatic, creepy, and like something out of a horror movie. You don't know this person, but normally he has a very persuasive, seductive (in a non sexual way), and extremely socially charming and polite personality. When you're around him, he makes everyone feel good about themselves (part of his strategy to get people to follow him and do what he wants is making them addicted to feeling good about themselves around him).

But after he knew I knew, things were different. The attitude DROPPED completely. He had a stone cold expression, no emotion in his voice, and the coldest eyes and voice tone you could imagine. There was only one emotion he showed when I revealed I knew, and it was terror. Deep, deep terror he was struggling to conceal. This made the situation all the more creepy, because this person is characterized by being completely fearless (as is typical of psychopaths), but I suspect if it's one thing that scares a psychopath, it's being found out -- which btw is why this article from the OP is so remarkable (though no doubt it's just an attempt at manipulation, if you know anything about psychopaths). But beyond the terror you could see, there was nothing -- just pure cold and calculating rational self-serving thought. He immediately terminated a multiple year "friendship" without even a thought, and distanced himself from me after he realized I could not be persuaded and distorted into thinking I was wrong and imagining things.

Since then we've crossed paths only a few times, and you can tell he's still afraid of being revealed. He's doing well though in business as you would expect of a psychopath, climbing the social ladder very quickly to a future of possible fortune.

I should add that it is indeed a common misconception that psychopaths are cold blooded killers. The reality is in some ways much more scary. The stupid ones perhaps kill, but they eventually get caught. The smart ones are leeches on society, who have no regard for anything but their own animalistic desires of power, control, and inflated ego.

Also, having been "friends" with a psychopath gives an interesting perspective on other well-known figures. Though I never met him, I am convinced Steve Jobs is pretty high on the psychopathy spectrum. What's interesting is that Jobs accomplished something valuable to society, though not without leaving a trail of damage in his wake. The psychopath I met also has a strong motivation to make an impact in the world, to be known almost as a hero, no doubt to satisfy desires of ego and power. So perhaps society's social structure can work for good and turn the desires of a psychopath towards good (but unfortunately it can also work in reverse). So in a way, I think psychopaths aren't all inherently leeches on society if what they accomplish is positively impactful to it.

But you see... the scariest part of having encountered a psychopath is it's sometimes very difficult to know if that last thought is my own, or something I was persuaded to think.

sliverstorm7• 13 years ago

So you're saying the letter is a long-con to increase trust in psychopaths to make it easier for the author to take advantage of people?

You say you don't necessarily mean "con", but "manipulated" definitely implies you feel you were led to believe something likely false that you wouldn't have otherwise via trickery, etc.

leot• 13 years ago

Any letter that honestly describes overcoming hardship should trigger empathy. That doesn't mean one is being manipulated.

The trouble with much of this discussion is that, apparently, once classified as a "psychopath", all bad behavior is typical and all good behavior manipulative.

Furthermore, though, minds are assembled of, and driven by, complex and messy mechanisms: "lack of remorse" means what, exactly? Lack of feeling? Or, perhaps, the person feels it but chooses to ignore it? Are they ignoring it for self-serving reasons? What if those "self-serving" reasons are necessary because of the job one has (e.g., military)? Similarly, "lack of guilt" means what, exactly? Is it lack of learning what things one should feel guilty for? Is "feeling guilt" a learned skill, or does its ontogeny happen "all on its own"? (whatever that means; but in any case, we cannot have had the capacity to feel guilt "since conception")

mcescalante• 13 years ago

This is a great analysis of the letter. I, like you, was amazed by how empathetic I felt towards the writer by the end. I wonder how much time was put into working the letter into what we read vs. the first thing the author wrote down. Best of all, reminds me how powerful good writing is :)

Pompky5• 13 years ago

Yes it is true. This is a very manipulative and actually non substantive, shallow piece of writing. It smacks of the superiority complex and has the shiny flawless gleam of the narcissist in the psychopath. It is just too slick and seamless. That is what gives away the fact of his psychopathy. In fact he is one of the worst forms of psychopath I think, which are those that actually believe what they are telling others about themselves. They feel themselves sincere, but they are not because inevitably the predator cimes out and takes his victim because thats how his mind unconsciously sets everything up to than end badly for the other at the hands of his destruction. Beware the psychopath that sincerely believes his own lies. Its very easy to get sucked in by pseudosincerity fueled by self conviction. These are the pernicious psuychopaths, not the ones delinerately trying to mislead you.

Pompky5• 13 years ago

In fact, why this young mans treatment likely exacerbated his psychopathic acumen, is because it gave him an entirely knrw language to dissimulate with. Why the psychopath is untreatable, is because it is a "lying" disorder. The essence of psychopathy is profound dishonesty. It is an inversion of meaning, an inversion of the order, where good becomes bad and bad becomes good. Where kindness is reformulatrd through the process of the ultimate lie, which is a perversion in the thinking processes. Evil triumphs. It is strong and good. The psychopath has only the machinery of perverde reasoning to use to cogitate reality. Thus he lies not only to others but neecessarily lies to himself about himself. Because of this endohenous

hexasquid• 13 years ago

I was fascinated by the setup, where we are shown a letter which begins with a request to keep it in confidence.

n09n3• 13 years ago

Those are also the ones that are actually sincere. If you insist on assuming the worst about others all the time, it's your loss.

MakeUsersWant• 13 years ago

That is what gives away the fact of his psychopathy. In fact he is one of the worst forms of psychopath I think, which are those that actually believe what they are telling others about themselves.

I disagree: People who believe their own lies eventually get caught off guard by the discrepancies between their lies and life. That leads to their downfall.

doctorfoo• 13 years ago

Funnily enough, I didn't feel any empathy at all. Does this make me a psychopath too? ;)

Instead, reading it gave me the impression of somebody obsessed with themselves - somebody with a superiority complex. Nothing more, nothing less, and I've met plenty of people who have that in different amounts. But maybe that is what psychopathy is?

jamesbritt• 13 years ago

Does this make me a psychopath too? ;)

I hope not because I had a similar reaction to the letter.

Made me wonder if this person is indeed changed, or if there's a just new manipulation game underway.

rsanheim• 13 years ago

Fantastic analysis.

Also a fantastic example of why real world psychopaths are so dangerous. Most don't kill or commit any serious crimes. They just win people over and draw them in, smoothly and very easily. Until it is to the psychopath's advantage (or impulse, really) to use, hurt, and leave others behind them.

n09n3• 13 years ago

That's not why they are dangerous, it's why they aren't. You could just as easily say that rich people, or charismatic people, or exceptionally intelligent people are dangerous, and it would be just as wrong (or just as correct, if you insist on thinking that way). Sure, greater potential overall translates to greater potential for evil. But it translates just as well into greater potential for good.

catchaway• 13 years ago

Perhaps the most fascinating part of this response is observing how this has changed the tone of discussion in this thread. It's interesting how the parent tries to downplay his own ability to identify weakness in his readers and manipulate them into thinking of what they found as inspirational as being manipulative.

Judging by the comments here, the parent's been pretty successful. One comment below notes that "What's brilliant about this letter is how easily I stepped into it." Others are calling the parent's analysis "fantastic". It's incredible to see just how effectively this parent comment resonates with the people who read it.

Don't get me wrong: It's both impressive and admirable that the parent was able to not only paint the original author's analysis as manipulative, he was able to build such a persuasive and fluid dissection of it. What's truly amazing is how the parent transforms the original author's letter from an anonymous insightful expression to a vile manipulation of the reader that the reader can't help but feel fooled by the end of the parent's comment.

As you read the comment and experience strong feelings of guilt about having been manipulated by a psychopath, consider this: You can paint pretty much anything effective as a psychopath's manipulation. For an author to be effective, she must portray her beliefs as effectively as she can. Discrediting the words of any person - psychopath or otherwise - on grounds of them being capable of effective manipulation serves little purpose and just perpetuates a stereotype.

shanusmagnus2• 13 years ago

Brilliant.

kansface4• 13 years ago

The op was successful because the analysis was accurate unlike yours.

As I stated below, the article more or less claims the author has magical supper powers. He overcomes the great internal struggle (with some help from the great expert) and ultimately chooses to use his powers for the good of the world.

The comment isn't transformative when the article is taken at face value- self aggrandizing.

PavlovsCat4• 13 years ago

It reminded me, as most things do, of the writings of Erich Fromm... what he said about sadism, that is. The desire to look down on, control and/or hurt others seems like a "consolation prize", like the highest you can achieve when you can't really live constructively, when you're deathly afraid of uncertainty and new things. The need to be able to strategically assess flaws in others to exploit ultimately speaks of fear, or at least lack of vision/capability. I mean, just imagine being around people you love wherever you are... all the stuff others work for without ever getting it, you have all the time, for free; welcome to compassion, step right in! :D

Also, maybe I am wrong, but I don't think there are people who "just are" psychopaths? I mean, if it's chemical/hormonal, it could theoretically fixed that way... and if it's not, then it might not be "fixable", but it's not magic either, and layers and layers and layers of defense, redirections and rationalizations are expected. Nobody wants to accept that the center of their pearl is some banal, useless, accidental piece of dirt someone else or the wind put there. But that's usually what it is, I think. And pearls can kill, they're not pretty at all. They're like a scab turned cancer.

I agree that considering psychopaths as some spooky "other" is silly, it's all a matter of degree, and I guess we only call it psychopathic once it crosses a threshold. That is, I doubt anyone here can claim they never used someone, or calculated more coldly than they let on, or looked down on sentimentality when they didn't feel sentimental about a particular thing. Or maybe I'm projecting, I don't know. I know putting others down because I felt crappy, and for me that letter sounds like a much more elaborate and Machiavellian version, but still kinda the same.

TL;DR: The thing about the powerful is that they're not, that's why they need power, and of course the alligator part of the brain gets real good if that's all you use. Use your mammal brain to see what a small achievement that really is.

undoware5• 13 years ago

I hate to logic-chop a civilian (i.e. someone who didn't waste their youth in an analytic philosophy department studying ethics) but here we go.

If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference.

Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Generalizing, there's always a reason why someone's supposed perfidy makes them an untrustworthy speaker, and that's a problem.

One floor down, what's going on is 'begging the question' -- not in the colloquial motivates-the-question sense, but in the sense that you are assuming what you set out to prove (circular reasoning).

Watch:

CLAIM = C is a psychopath; therefore, don't trust him when he says C is good.

CLAIM' = X is a Y; therefore, don't believe X's claim that Z.

But there's still an implicit claim hiding! In fact, it's the value of Z. Let's suss it out:

CLAIM'' = X is a Y; Ys are untrustworthy; therefore, don't believe X when X says that Ys are trustworthy.

There you have it: a textbook case of circular reasoning. That's the sort of thing C is talking about: people get so emotional when they think about psychopaths, they fail to hold themselves up to the same standards for rational discourse at which a psychopath ironically excels.

DanBC4• 13 years ago

If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopaths are themselves only convincing because the psychopath is somehow 'tricking' you, then you can take that statement and s/psychopath/any group you care to name/ and you'd never know the difference. Don't believe me? Try substituting various bogeymen of the twentieth century: crack dealers, pedophiles, etc. You see what I mean? It always works: You shouldn't trust what pedophiles say because, well, they're pedophiles!

Your logic chop fails because one of the elements of psychopathy is being a convincing liar.

MarkPNeyer3• 13 years ago

If your position is that all convincing self-accounts by psychopath

He made no such generalization. He simply talked about this one self account.

Guvante2• 13 years ago

To be fair, he is specifically pointing out bits of information that are designed to lead you a certain way, he is not just saying don't believe him.

Thus you can't debunk him just by saying "Don't believe him because he is a psychopath is insufficient".

If you want to pin all of his logic on that baseline theory (which would be stretching it), then your replacement no longer works, as crack dealers aren't known for being persuasive and manipulative in words in that way. Similar for most other distrusted groups.

sciguy77• 13 years ago

This is why I love HN. I learned something new from your comment, thank you.

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

Undoware, all very well explained; I couldn't agree more.

barrkel• 13 years ago

Actually, the comment you're referring to just suggests people take a step back from the material of the letter, and look at its overall effect: one of self-aggrandizement.

Once you see that, the material of the letter takes on a different aspect. Even if it weren't from a psychopath, it would be enlightening.

(I have other issues with your use of naive logic based on non-probabilistic propositions, but you may be doing that to dumb it down for the audience.)

sliverstorm7• 13 years ago

he was too incredible of a case for anyone but the highest-ranking therapist to handle

I was actually waiting for a reveal of something like, "And I discovered the reason I connected with the top therapist so well was because she was a closet psychopath!"

Havoc5• 13 years ago

You might not be all that far off the mark. I'd imagine people who fall somewhere within the dark triad [1] would connect better with a psychopath, even if they are not one themselves.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

The detail of the highest-ranking therapist, plus others -the need for validation, the fact that the writer declares to be keen on interpersonal connections, the general air of self-involvement, plus the simple act of dishing personal stuff in public - makes me think more of narcissism than psychopathy.

(IANA psychiatrist, needless to say)

In fact, I suspect that most people who flaunt their psychopathy on the internet are in fact narcissists. The two psychos I've met in my life couldn't have cared less for attention from the public at large or validation of their struggles. I can't really imagine them writing an open letter about their condition, an act that doesn't provide tangible control, or money, nor damages an enemy. On the other hand, narcissists needs validation and attention and writing an open letter is attention-seeking behaviour (which we are involuntarily feeding).

Florin_Andrei• 13 years ago

Good points.

Here's something even more fascinating, and surely much more controversial - now re-read that letter, and try and count how many times you hear in it echoes from Ayn Rand's characters, or from the writer herself.

pwm• 13 years ago

One thing I find interesting about this topic is that as far as I know conventional wisdom says psychopathy is incurable, and comments here implicitly or explicitly seem to agree on this. Neuroplasticity, at least in my interpretation, says that there is an observable feedback loop between the biological structure of our brain and our thoughts/feelings/actions, ie. our "mind". If someone with characteristic of psychopathy, or any mental disorder labelled as incurable for that matter, consciously decides that he/she want to change his/her behavioural patterns then theoretically it is possible. Now, in a way all I did was rephrase my question into how conscious are we regarding our behaviour? Conscious enough to change it? :)

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

I'm still amazed at how effective it is at garnering empathy from the reader and cultivating a sense that the author is an impressive individual who has triumphed over adversity after a great struggle.

You might be right, but you seem to accuse the writer of a hidden agenda because he tries to gain the sympathy of the reader. If he didn't try at all, would you see callousness and cold detachment (and therefore a psychopathic trait) in this? What would constitute for you a honest, non-manipulative account of the same facts described in the post? How should it have been written to be consistent with the 'psycho no more' scenario?

scotty79• 13 years ago

I haven't bought any of it. Guy seems to be just full of himself. Maybe it's just because I'm also a keen observer and bit psychopathic myself.

Nah. I'm kidding. I'm just generally distrustful of words and people that utter them.

shanusmagnus2• 13 years ago

What is most fascinating to me is the fact that posts like the parent will delve into the game theoretic motivations of psychopathy as if the psychopath were some wholly unique flavor of creature operating under behavioral algorithms never before seen, when the truth is that your neurotypical, salt of the Earth Johnny Lunchpail is doing the same thing, except on a different timescale, and with the utility functions ingrained into heuristics like 'empathy' and 'compassion' and the like.

Unless you believe that your motivational orientation is made of some magical pixie dust handed down by the Holy Ghost, you should keep in mind that your instincts, your sense of morality and right and wrong and all those gut feelings are engendered by a truly massive utility computation; your feelings of selflessness as you drop the coins in the bell ringer's jar, your protectiveness toward your children, your lesser protectiveness toward your more distant kinship relations, all of it is equivalently cold-blooded. It's just dispersed enough that you don't see it for what it is.

So when you stop talking to your friend because he's annoying, or you don't give money to that homeless guy because you've already gave enough money, and maybe he's a drunk; and you buy a nice present for your nephew but not your coworker's kid, and you think it's best that your grandmother died because she was suffering so terribly, you're a psycopath, too. There's just a lot of epiphenomenal stuff larded on top of it.

Houshalter3• 13 years ago

So because a person is not themselves a perfect altruist, they are no better than a person who has no empathy or morality whatsoever?

calroc• 13 years ago

This is, of course, the only safe (for the speaker) way to admit to normals what s/he is. Otherwise it is torches and pitchforks with you people. (Normal humans are far more frightening than any psychopath. ;-)

bicx• 13 years ago

After reading these comments, I'm fairly certain my cat is a psychopath.

Pompky5• 13 years ago

I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people who hopelessly, endlessly intellectualize and play mind games because there is no depth to them. It is only mind machinations without the depth and nuance of a fully feeling and emotionally alive human being. I had psychopathic parents and studied psychopathy as a PhD criminal forensic psycholovist encountering many serial killers, cons and the like. Why do they do what they do? It is no great mystery as I used to think. They dismember people psychologically and physically for the simple reason that they enjoy it. They derive pleasure from the destruction of victims to their power dominance orientation. They are boring stupid people who ate not the least bit interesting. They are pathetic. They choose people smaller and weaker than them that they can pick them off out of the herd of humanity. They are sad expressions of the human genome and dont deserve near the hype and fascination they get. Once you figure them out, it is very easy to remain quite detached from their mental gyrations to seduce and ensnare. It becomes annoying actually. I for one am over it. I do recommend that you not allow one at your hearth or into your bed. You will pay dearly. One cannot allow emotional involvement or any attachment to such people as a regular person is want to do with other humann beings. Get rid of them, they will destroy your mind, spirit and your life. Take it from one who knows from a very young age.

VladimirGolovin7• 13 years ago

I think psychopaths are incredibly boring, unidemensional people.

I met at least two. Both were extremely vivid people, and deeper contact with them, when they turn off their cloaking field, was baffling: it was a bit like communicating with an alien.

In any case, these people were really, really far from being dull.

southpawgirl8• 13 years ago

Agree. It's a rocky ride to attempt closer contact with a psychopath: there's nobody home, and you discover eventually that you were relating to a 3-D, Technicolour magnified mirror more than to another human being. And, at the same time, the mirror is almost painfully alive. I never saw so well my own strengths and flaws, never had to doubt even the most basic assumptions like when in a 'friendship' with such people.

Those tho, were high functioning, highly educated people. I don't think that psychopathy tells the whole story about anyone - there's more to one's personality than psychopathy or absence of, and that one shouldn't be tempted to generalise such experiences.

badman_ting• 13 years ago

Yes, this idea that they are hopelessly boring strikes me as wishful thinking. Everything would be so much easier if that were truly the case.

RivieraKid• 13 years ago

How did you knoe they were psychopaths?

wlmeldmanfloch2• 13 years ago

i think its more like they can't feel. stay safe of course but have pity, you've been born healthy in this regard

dfraser9922• 13 years ago

Sociopaths are one of the fundamental threats facing humanity today. Such traits may have been beneficial in times past as group conflict was so prevalent, but if global issues like getting into space, climate change and the prevention of economic chaos are to be dealt with effectively, humanity is going to have to learn how to cooperate more effectively. And that means preventing sociopaths from getting into positions of power.

Unfortunately, society does not seem to have yet evolved the mechanisms to deal with these parasites effectively. The law is hardly a useful tool, given how "flexible" and corrupt it is, and how money aka power is so important in manipulation of the law versus "truth". Economists aka amateur sociopaths are finally beginning to realize an obvious truth - that most humans are not rational actors strictly concerned with profit and loss but that decisions are based on emotion much more than they'd like to admit and so this has a significant effect on economic behavior.

All this does matter because ask yourself - what of the effects these people have on the lives of those they exploit? what sort of setbacks do the good people end up facing and how much of a drain is it on their lives and their efforts to -contribute- to society as a whole? I see so much waste because of the unnecessary chaos the sociopathic introduce to society as a whole. They are a threat and capital punishment is a logical response, because they can not be rehabilitated. But given how society is organized, rich white people are never going to be executed, or even prosecuted, for their crimes unless they're so egregious they can't be ignored.

Even then, the case of Jimmy Savile (in the UK) is an example of how humanity still is little nothing more than talking chimpanzees who respond more to and are controlled by instinctual behavior patterns versus the ability to cogitate like "we" think we are able to. Jimmy was a sociopath, everyone knew he was a pedo, but nothing was done because no one wanted to speak up because of the social cost. Things are better these days, of course, so maybe in another 100 years, there will be a test toddlers are given to track whether they are likely to be sociopathic, and more effort will be put into preventing the development of such evil monsters. It is like the Head Start program in the States - prevent issues down the road by ensuring children have the best psychological foundation established as early as possible.

aianus• 13 years ago

Sounds scarily like thoughtcrime to me.

Havoc5• 13 years ago

Well good luck with your witch hunt.

dfraser9922• 13 years ago

Why is the global witch hunt against terrorists (excuse me, Muslims) acceptable, but bringing people like the bankers at HSBC, who enabled drug lords and the like for over a decade, not? HSBC's actions were far more detrimental to society than any terrorist attack, yet no one will ever be punished for their actions - not anyone involved in the crash of 2008. Both are clearly wrong, but given how hypocritical Western society actually is, it is obvious one can get away with anything as long as you're part of the upper echelons / in group. And abstract stuff like financial crimes are not so emotionally tinged as concrete crimes, like murder. And federal prosecutors are lazy sociopaths who haven't got the stomach to prosecute powerful people anymore...

This probably explains why people get more conservative as they get older - they see how screwed up the world is and retreating into pseudo-authoritarianism makes sense, emotionally. But conservative values these days are just cover for the authoritarians. I guess I am complaining about the fundamental lack of integrity of Western society that is so obvious anymore. On that note, I just picked up "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" which looks like a good read.

dave_sid5• 13 years ago

I think I've come in to the wrong forum. I thought this was HN.

dave_sid5• 13 years ago

Can't believe this story is at the top of the front page. Shame. Shame on you.

theorique3• 13 years ago

Because the inner workings of different human minds are not of interest to hackers.

Why shame?

wlmeldmanfloch2• 13 years ago

I find that it is hard to distinguish between psycopathy and narcissism. This person seems like a pathological narcissist not a psychopath. This person is ego tripping by self identifying with something they find powerful. A psychopath may have similar hangups but they don't believe in their own bullshit and would not waste time with self reflection or therapy. Psycopathy is like depression; psycopaths do crazy shit because they can't feel.

mzs• 13 years ago

"I hope that it can remain confidential for the time being, seeing as it is quite personal."

Dang who is the one exploiting weakness here?

2mur• 13 years ago

Interesting article on a clear psychopath:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013...

b1daly• 13 years ago

I've sometimes wondered if the presence of psychopaths in powerful organizations leads to sociopathic behavior on the organizations part, even though most members are "normal." I'm thinking of situations like the outlandish behaviors of major investment banks defrauding their customers, knowingly selling them "toxic" mortgage back securities.

A small population of actors, inclined to gain power, and ruthless in conduct forces all members of the community to act in concert, lest they be cast out entirely.

This might also explain the disconnect of an organization like the NSA, made up of mostly decent, sincere people, engagin in profoundly anti-social, if not downright illegal, activities.

JulianRaphael• 13 years ago

I have a very pragmatic view that psychopathic traits are just one specific set of algorithms of the many possible sets of algorithms our personalities can exhibit to connect and interact with other personalities or more generally speaking our environment. Looking at the state of the world, at least a subset of these behavioral algorithms seems to be quite efficient (as the letter shows) and various subsets/traits seem to be very common and even desirable. Obviously the manifestation of the overall set which you would define as "psychopathy" varies from psychopath to psychopath, hence the image of the "cartoon evil serial killers", the "CEO" and many more in between these two. I guess in the end it depends on the balance of influence between three factors: the other sets of algorithms which make up your personality, the personalities you interact with and your environment.

I personally think we should look into what we can learn from this set of behavioral algorithms (the good, the bad and the ugly) and how you can balance it to leverage its benefits while not suffering from its drawbacks. That's at least how I deal with it.

aagha• 13 years ago

Given the number of people here who say have have met or interacted w/ a psychopath, one would think that every other person out there is one.

socrates1998• 13 years ago

Interesting read, but about half-way through I realized he could be manipulating me into thinking he was decent person, just misunderstood.

Anyways, it is scary to realize that there are lots of powerful people out there like this.

Actually, I think there are many powerful CEO's and political leaders that are psychopaths.

How else could they convince people to give them the power, money, and influence they have?

pathtopsyche• 13 years ago

I come from a rather unstable and violent corner of the world, and I've met plenty of psychopaths growing up. I have a hypothesis that early childhood traumas and violent environment can trigger the development of psychopathic tendencies, but I'm not entirely sure how much role does genetics play in this process.

Some of the commenters on this topic seem to ascribe superhuman rationality and brainpower to psychopaths. I don't think that's a correct way to look at it. They can be very smart, but they suffer from the same set of biases and blind spots and Dunning-Kruger type of phenomena as other people. I think the defining characteristic is the complete lack of empathy and the willingness and ability to manipulate people (practicing the skill from early childhood, hence very good at it).

I was just looking up one of the smartest and most pronounced psychopaths I've met in recent years. Apparently he got his MBA and started an offshore private equity fund, seems to be doing well for himself. The guy had monumental talent for manipulating people. I wonder how far will he go before people catch on to his true nature...

ashleypea• 13 years ago

Who here is aware of the fact Oskar schindler was a psychopath? He sold all his business and fortune to save hundreds of lives. All we hear is psychopaths who fit the stereotype, not those who do not. Cognitive dissonance.

michaelwww2• 13 years ago

Can two psychopaths fall in love with each other?

jbeja• 13 years ago

Yes!

michaelwww2• 13 years ago

Leopold and Loeb? How about Bonnie and Clyde? Probably both couples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb

dantium• 13 years ago

Are psychopaths ticklish?

Letter From A Psychopath

Related Stories