Beware, the boss could be a nutter

Sonnenblumen

According to latest research, 1% of the general population are psychopaths. But amongst CEO's the figure is 4% :eek:

You've been warned.

Mike 1972

I call BS on those figures.

Way too low !

KeithM89_old

Good thing im jobless then...

Aoifey!

Another reason not to get a job :cool:

For Forks Sake

Good thing I'm the CEO then

dilallio

All Cranky Evil Ogre's are nutters

Schism

According to latest research, 47% of research is false :P

Hookah

I read something similar with respect to the world's leaders. Psychopathic qualities help one climb the ladders of power.

A scary thought.

Bruthal

Schism wrote: »

According to latest research, 47% of research is false :P

And there is only a 10% chance of that

strokemyclover

KeithM89 wrote: »

Good thing im jobless then...

Ah, I see....cos psychopaths are harmless when they're idle!

*Phew*

DrHLecter

lets see paul allens card

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-yoMEZXnbQ

cosmicfart

Does this research take account of mental birds running around my rooftop cawing and taking the pis waking me up at 6 o clock in the morning?

Redlion

Define "psychopath"...

Where To

What about the self-employed?

Senna

psychopaths is a term used in movies, i doubt any research carried out by anyone other than transition year students would carry that term.

Bruthal

Senna wrote: »

psychopaths is a term used in movies, i doubt any research carried out by anyone other than transition year students would carry that term.

Just heard it used there on tv3 on a documentary about irish prisons.

Senna

robbie7730 wrote: »

Just heard it used there on tv3 on a documentary about irish prisons.

I rest my case.

Bruthal

Senna wrote: »

I rest my case.

O wait,, no,, it was a film.

Sonnenblumen

Senna wrote: »

psychopaths is a term used in movies, i doubt any research carried out by anyone other than transition year students would carry that term.

Hows that?

Naikon

Psychopath isn't really a scientifically valid term. Anyway, being overly nice isn't something that will get you very far in this world. Sad but true. Take Bill Gates or Jobs for instance.

Saila

Redlion wrote: »

Define "psychopath"...

PCL-R model of psychopathy

The PCL-R is a clinical rating scale (rated by a psychologist or other professional) of 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file information and a semi-structured interview. A value of 0 is assigned if the item does not apply, 1 if it applies somewhat, and 2 if it fully applies. In addition to lifestyle and criminal behavior the checklist assesses glib and superficial charm, grandiosity, need for stimulation, pathological lying, conning and manipulating, lack of remorse, callousness, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, irresponsibility, failure to accept responsibility for one's own actions and so forth. The scores are used to predict risk for criminal re-offence and probability of rehabilitation.

Sonnenblumen

Naikon wrote: »

Psychopath isn't really a scientifically valid term. Anyway, being overly nice isn't something that will get you very far in this world. Sad but true. Take Bill Gates or Jobs for instance.

What do you mean the disorder is no longer 'valid'? Pedantics or what??

Nice guys make bad bosses.

Naikon

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What do you mean the disorder is no longer 'valid'? Pedantics or what??

Nice guys make bad bosses.

The term has no grounding in scientific analysis. Without an actual solid physical pathology backing up the term, it's merely a label used to describe those that do not conform to societal norms or conventions. Morals are a human construct after all.

For example, I could call you a bollix for cheating on your wife. That is not sufficient to assert that a real "condition" called psychopathy actually exists. It's merely a label imo. Morals are relative to individual expectations, there is no such quantity to test physchopathy.

Terry

I saw that somewhere last week.
Generally people who go out of their way to make people like them, but are complete and utter **** themselves. They go nuts if they find out that someone doesn't like them.

I always wanted to be a psycopath. I just can't be bothered spending a lot of time trying to get people to like me.

Also, apparently 1 in 4 people have psychopathic tendencies.

Saila

Naikon wrote: »

The term has no grounding in scientific analysis. Without an actual solid physical pathology backing up the term, it's merely a label used to describe those that do not conform to societal norms or conventions. Morals are a human construct after all.

For example, I could call you a bollix for cheating on your wife. That is not sufficient to assert that a real "condition" called psychopathy actually exists. It's merely a label imo. Morals are relative to individual expectations, there is no such quantity to test physchopathy.

..and he's off! :pac:

ok, what @the part in bold

languagenerd

This is from Jon Ronson's new book, was at a talk he gave here last week.

Psychopath is a medical term but it's not in the DSM because the man who coined the term (can't remember his first name but his surname's Herr) was having a row with the people who wrote the book on mental illness.

http://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594488010
- there you go, though that's the US cover.

Naikon

Saila wrote: »

..and he's off! :pac:

ok, what @the part in bold

Lets take the gravitational force g of the earth. If I factor out air resistance, you can be pretty certain that the stone I throw falls at an approximate value of 9.81 meters a second every second.

Unless I am camping on the moon, you can expect that to hold true and be observable through independant analysis(throw yer own stone!). A consistent Physical observation.

There are so many extra touchy feely human factors influencing the pyschopath diagnosis, it's probably best not to call someone something without a hard diagnostic test. It's Adult name calling imo.

WoollyRedHat

Since when are CEO's not part of general population. Must have missed that memo

Yahew

Naikon wrote: »

Lets take the gravitational force g of the earth. If I factor out air resistance, you can be pretty certain that the stone I throw falls at an approximate value of 9.81 meters a second every second.

Unless I am camping on the moon, you can expect that to hold true and be observable through independant analysis(throw yer own stone!). A consistent Physical observation.

There are so many extra touchy feely human factors influencing the pyschopath diagnosis, it's probably best not to call someone something without a hard diagnostic test. It's Adult name calling imo.

That kind of test is used by psychologists all the time, to test personality, for asbergers, ADHD etc. I am more doubtful of the latter two then I am of psycopathy. However there are no formal neurological tests.

Yahew

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Since when are CEO's not part of general population. Must have missed that memo

The "but" in the OP's second sentence doesn't exclude CEO's from the general population.

Naikon

Yahew wrote: »

However there are no formal neurological tests.

I rest my case.

Saila

Naikon wrote: »

I rest my case. All Psychiatry and Psychology are BS

.

Sonnenblumen

Naikon wrote: »

The term has no grounding in scientific analysis. Without an actual solid physical pathology backing up the term, it's merely a label used to describe those that do not conform to societal norms or conventions. Morals are a human construct after all.

For example, I could call you a bollix for cheating on your wife. That is not sufficient to assert that a real "condition" called psychopathy actually exists. It's merely a label imo. Morals are relative to individual expectations, there is no such quantity to test physchopathy.

Easy on the waffle Dr Harry!

An adulterer is not necessarily a psychopath, but some psychopaths are probably adulterers. BTW are 'Morals' not related to prevailing norms?

Naikon

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Easy on the waffle Dr Harry!

An adulterer is not necessarily a psychopath, but some psychopaths are probably adulterers. BTW are 'Morals' not related to prevailing norms?

I am not a doctor:)

AskMyChocolate

Naikon wrote: »

Lets take the gravitational force g of the earth. If I factor out air resistance, you can be pretty certain that the stone I throw falls at an approximate value of 9.81 meters a second every second.

Unless I am camping on the moon, you can expect that to hold true and be observable through independant analysis(throw yer own stone!). A consistent Physical observation.

There are so many extra touchy feely human factors influencing the pyschopath diagnosis, it's probably best not to call someone something without a hard diagnostic test. It's Adult name calling imo.

Naikon wrote: »

I am not a doctor:)

You're no physicist either.:pac::P

JohnMarston

Redlion wrote: »

Define "psychopath"...

A personality disorder, characterized by the inability to form human attachment and an abnormal lack of empathy, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

Wikipedia, im learning so much today!

Sonnenblumen

JohnMarston wrote: »

A personality disorder, characterized by the inability to form human attachment and an abnormal lack of empathy, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

Wikipedia, im learning so much today!

That's pretty clear and familiar to most of us? Another variant might be the dreaded 'control freak'.

Saila

JohnMarston wrote: »

A personality disorder, characterized by the inability to form human attachment and an abnormal lack of empathy, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

*QI buzzernoise*

...........................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Naikon

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

You're no physicist either.:pac::

Explain it to me please. Show me the apparent deficiencies. The acceleration is constant with a free fall. The change in velocity changes at a constant rate. English isn't known for precision.

JohnMarston

Saila wrote: »

*QI buzzernoise*

...........................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

An intelligent and articulate response, how sir may I become as enlightened as you? :pac:

Naikon

-_-

AskMyChocolate

Naikon wrote: »

Lets take the gravitational force g of the earth. If I factor out air resistance, you can be pretty certain that the stone I throw falls at an approximate value of 9.81 meters a second every second.

Unless I am camping on the moon, you can expect that to hold true and be observable through independant analysis(throw yer own stone!). A consistent Physical observation.

There are so many extra touchy feely human factors influencing the pyschopath diagnosis, it's probably best not to call someone something without a hard diagnostic test. It's Adult name calling imo.

Naikon wrote: »

Explain it to me please. Show me the apparent deficiencies. The acceleration is constant with a free fall. The change in velocity changes at a constant rate. English isn't known for precision.

The stone does not fall at an approximate 9.81 metres per second every second. It accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.

i.e by your calculations, after 10 seconds, the stone will have dropped by 98.1 m whereas actually it will have fallen by 490.5m.

At least, I think so, but I'm open to correction.

Logical Fallacy

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

According to latest research, 1% of the general population are psychopaths. But amongst CEO's the figure is 4% :eek:

You've been warned.

It's because many of the traits of being a psychopath translate well over to the world of business.

Also, as far as i am aware the person who did the study noted himself that it was flawed as he was unable to get the proper ratio's between the groups, and was using an older version of his profiling methods for some of them.

Naikon

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

The stone does not fall at an approximate 9.81 metres per second every second. It accelerates at 9.81 m/s^2.

i.e by your calculations, after 10 seconds, the stone will have dropped by 98.1 m whereas actually it will have fallen by 490.5m.

At least, I think so, but I'm open to correction.

I didn't specify the distance or any other values. I was referring to the fact that the velocity changes by 9.81m/s for every second given g - the acceleration due to gravity constant for an object in free fall. For example, the velocity of the stone after 10 seconds will be 98.1m/s. fall == drop given the right conditions. The possible ambiguity of the term "fall" is not my problem. Making assumptions without all the facts on the other hand...

Naikon

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's because many of the traits of being a psychopath translate well over to the world of business.

Also, as far as i am aware the person who did the study noted himself that it was flawed as he was unable to get the proper ratio's between the groups, and was using an older version of his profiling methods for some of them.

What about a murderer? Is he/she a psychopath by default?

Logical Fallacy

Naikon wrote: »

What about a murderer? Is he/she a psychopath by default?

I wouldn't think so, what with crimes of passion, murder in self defense etc.

I imagine it's also very possible for people to classified as a psychopath who will never go on to commit murder, or even a violent crime.

Naikon

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I wouldn't think so, what with crimes of passion, murder in self defense etc.

I imagine it's also very possible for people to classified as a psychopath who will never go on to commit murder, or even a violent crime.

Or more importantly, don't get caught:D

Logical Fallacy

Naikon wrote: »

Or more importantly, don't get caught:D

Damn straight. Probably a few books on assorted forensic techniques that would help quite a bit in that department.

Red Hand

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I wouldn't think so, what with crimes of passion, murder in self defense etc.

I imagine it's also very possible for people to classified as a psychopath who will never go on to commit murder, or even a violent crime.

True enough. There are a few composers that when you read a bit about them, they seem to display pyschopathic tendencies...but didn't commit any violent crimes. Richard Wagner would be one.

Sonnenblumen

Of course some murderers would be psychopaths, ie those who killed without any remorse for the crime/victim would surely fit the profile?

Killing in self defense or unpremeditated homicide would not match profile?

Logical Fallacy

Well, as far as i am aware this is the relevant test used to determine if you are a Psychopath or not, and as such, the type of punishment handed out after you commit a crime be it jail time or some padded cell somewhere.

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

Objectively and honestly scoring myself on it i would, probably, come up as a psychopath tbh....however, this is largely because many of the factors are quite open to interpretation and if you think long and hard you can probably find a good reason to give yourself a 2.

It all seems a little bit bogus to me.