A fourth of (1 in 25) is ~1%, or about the prevalence cited for psychopathy in the general population, so if we assume the same definition of psychopathy those odds are pretty good, I’d say. They’d only not fall into that range if business leaders are less likely to be psychopaths, which isn’t an absurd proposition but also isn’t one I’ve seen any evidence for.
First you imply that the “actual frequency” is a feature of the territory—I’m not sure about that at all (the underlying “feature” is likely to be a continuum with a semi-arbitrary threshold imposed by a map).
But the real question we’re discussing is not what the absolute frequency is. The real question is whether sociopaths are more frequent in “business leaders” than in general population. I don’t have any hard data, so I have to rely on priors. My prior would be that the frequency of sociopaths would be lower in “business leaders”.
The reasoning for that goes as follows. Not all sociopaths are high-functioning—some (a lot?) are just mean, grumpy, bitchy common people with not high IQ. Low-functioning sociopaths won’t make it into business leaders—they are much more likely to go e.g. into military forces and/or law enforcement.
High-functioning sociopaths are pretty rare, I think. For them the natural habit would be politics as that’s where a power-hungry charming liar can get the biggest payoffs. Some will be business leaders—Steve Jobs is the prime example—but I don’t think there will be many of those.
Don’t forget that using psychiatric terms as derogatory labels is standard operating procedure :-) “Idiot” used to be a clinical diagnosis, so was “cretin”, “imbecile”, etc. etc.
High-functioning sociopaths are pretty rare, I think.
But, historically, most of the data on sociopaths comes from the ones who end up in jail or therapy. Apart from the recent research, which you are rejecting on the grounds that it contradicts the older data, And your hunches, on which topic...
I don’t have any hard data, so I have to rely on priors.
.....or ’handwaving” as it’s unsympathetically known.
The issues with psychopaths in the workplace is that they’re very good at finding high-ranking patrons to protect them:
What interested Babiak most about this case was the fact that while those closest to him were convinced of Dave’s manipulations, irresponsibility, and lack of integrity, those higher up in the organization had been convinced—by Dave—of his management talent and potential.
-- Robert Hare, Without Conscience Ch. 8
By the time someone complains about the psychopath, upper management has already gotten an earful about how awful the psychopath’s coworkers are and how badly they stifle his ability to shine. Psychopaths are good manipulators. Hare mentions how even he, one of the foremost experts on psychopathy, still gets taken in by them.
First you imply that the “actual frequency” is a feature of the territory—I’m not sure about that at all (the underlying “feature” is likely to be a continuum with a semi-arbitrary threshold imposed by a map).
This is correct. The Psychopathy Checklist does have an arbitrary cutoff point.
Given the evidence that Babiak is relying on, how high would you estimate the odds of his estimate being within a factor of 4 of the actual frequency?
A fourth of (1 in 25) is ~1%, or about the prevalence cited for psychopathy in the general population, so if we assume the same definition of psychopathy those odds are pretty good, I’d say. They’d only not fall into that range if business leaders are less likely to be psychopaths, which isn’t an absurd proposition but also isn’t one I’ve seen any evidence for.
First you imply that the “actual frequency” is a feature of the territory—I’m not sure about that at all (the underlying “feature” is likely to be a continuum with a semi-arbitrary threshold imposed by a map).
But the real question we’re discussing is not what the absolute frequency is. The real question is whether sociopaths are more frequent in “business leaders” than in general population. I don’t have any hard data, so I have to rely on priors. My prior would be that the frequency of sociopaths would be lower in “business leaders”.
The reasoning for that goes as follows. Not all sociopaths are high-functioning—some (a lot?) are just mean, grumpy, bitchy common people with not high IQ. Low-functioning sociopaths won’t make it into business leaders—they are much more likely to go e.g. into military forces and/or law enforcement.
High-functioning sociopaths are pretty rare, I think. For them the natural habit would be politics as that’s where a power-hungry charming liar can get the biggest payoffs. Some will be business leaders—Steve Jobs is the prime example—but I don’t think there will be many of those.
Don’t forget that using psychiatric terms as derogatory labels is standard operating procedure :-) “Idiot” used to be a clinical diagnosis, so was “cretin”, “imbecile”, etc. etc.
But, historically, most of the data on sociopaths comes from the ones who end up in jail or therapy. Apart from the recent research, which you are rejecting on the grounds that it contradicts the older data, And your hunches, on which topic...
.....or ’handwaving” as it’s unsympathetically known.
The issues with psychopaths in the workplace is that they’re very good at finding high-ranking patrons to protect them:
-- Robert Hare, Without Conscience Ch. 8
By the time someone complains about the psychopath, upper management has already gotten an earful about how awful the psychopath’s coworkers are and how badly they stifle his ability to shine. Psychopaths are good manipulators. Hare mentions how even he, one of the foremost experts on psychopathy, still gets taken in by them.
This is correct. The Psychopathy Checklist does have an arbitrary cutoff point.
All right. Thanks for sharing that.
I’m still curious about Epictetus’ estimate of Babiak’s claim’s accuracy.