Psychopath
© Unknown
There are two types of psychopath — not all are unhelpful and destructive.

Not all psychopaths are the same.There are two types of psychopaths — primary and secondary — according to new research.

Primary psychopaths can be cooperative, helpful and friendly. Secondary psychopaths, though, are usually destructive, unhelpful and perform badly at work.


Comment: What nonsense. Right off the bat, the author has defined terms improperly. Conventionally, a primary psychopath is born that way, with characteristic brain impairments, as detected through MRIs and other diagnostic tools. "Secondary psychopaths" is something of a misnomer - they don't necessary have the hereditary substrate of a primary psychopath, but come to resemble them through childhood neglect and abuse, poor social conditions, plus attempting to survive in a psychopathic society. While still anti-social, they are still not psychopaths. Actual psychopaths may differ in the scale of destruction they can wreak, but not in their propensity for it.


Ms Nora Schütte, the study's first author, said that primary psychopaths are marked out by the trait of 'fearless dominance':
"People with this character trait want to get their way, have no fear of the consequences of their actions, and can withstand stress very well.
In comparison, secondary psychopaths have high self-centred impulsivity, she said:
"Persons with high values here lack an inner brake. Their self-control is thus weak, and they therefore do not have any consideration for others. They are referred to as secondary psychopaths".

Comment: How is there a difference between these two statements? Having 'no fear of consequences' surely must include any people hurt by the 'good' psychopaths' actions in 'getting their way'.


The research included 161 people asked questions about their personalities and how they interacted at work.

The results showed that primary psychopaths — those displaying 'fearless dominance — were nonetheless often seen as cooperative and helpful.


Comment: '[O]ften seen as cooperative and helpful'? By whom? The person answering the questionnaire? If Ms. Schütte had taken the time, as Babiak and Hare did, to interview co-workers promised anonymity, she may have gotten a far different picture of her subjects. Were the individuals in this test even given a valid test for psychopathy in the first place?


Ms Schütte said:
"But that was true only when these primary psychopaths also had marked social skills. Above all that included skills that are generally important at work - such as the gift of making others feel well".

Comment: A psychopath may be helpful, friendly, encouraging, etc. if it advances their agenda. Cross them at your peril: Psychopaths feign emotion in order to take advantage of others - Study


Secondary psychopaths, though, really are trouble no matter how good their social skills were, Ms Schütte said:
"These persons with high values in secondary psychopathy thus really do have the postulated negative effects upon their work environment. And to a much greater degree than when we examine both groups together."
Professor Gerhard Blickle, the study's co-author, said that not all psychopaths were evil — in fact many are quite the reverse:
"Even persons with marked psychopathic traits do not necessarily exhibit antisocial behavior. Persons with a high degree of fearless dominance can even be selfless heroes in everyday life, such as life-savers, emergency physicians, or firefighters."

Comment: Their motivations are egotistic, making them reckless and often putting their comrades in danger. Plus, "fearless dominance" is not a measure of psychopath. There is no 1:1 correlation, otherwise it could be used as a test for psychopathy. It can't and it isn't (unlike the PCL-R, which is the standard).


The study was published in the Journal of Management (Schütte & Blickle, 2016).