theater masks internet trolls
© 39968883 | Dreamstime.com
Psychopathy in the news

I am reposting two recent articles on psychopathy with some commentary. The first comes from Finlay Macdonald for The Conversation and was published back in April. The headline: "Why a psychopath wouldn't hesitate to cause another global financial crisis - if there was something in it for them."
Would you want a psychopath looking after your pension? Or what about your shares? In a recent talk at the Cambridge Festival of Science, I spoke about the latest research relating to a psychopath's love of money, greed for power, and willingness to harm other people financially for personal gain.
It is fashionable in some circles to argue that the psychopath's lack of empathy is an asset in certain professions. For example, they will be cool surgeons under pressure, task-oriented soldiers unhindered by fear or remorse, ruthless businessmen willing to take risks that will benefit shareholders. In reality, they're just as likely to kill you under the knife and not care, kill their brothers in arms if it means saving their skin, or screw over everyone else in the company for their own gain. They may have certain skills, like everyone, but they are fundamentally unreliable, because they just don't care.
Since I began researching corporate psychopaths and the global financial crisis, the idea of the financial psychopath, an employee in the financial sector acting ruthlessly, recklessly, greedily and selfishly with other people's money, has gained traction.

The theory won support because psychopaths are more commonly found in financial services than in other sectors. It has even been argued that up to 10% of employees in financial services could be psychopathic. That is to say they have no empathy, care for other people, conscience or regrets for any damage they do.

These traits make them ruthless in pursuit of their own agendas and entirely focused on self-promotion and self-advancement.

But my ongoing research goes even further. It has found that psychopaths are willing to knowingly cause financial harm to the entire global community, in order to receive a financial bonus for themselves. Personal greed outweighs the immense social and community costs of implementing that greed.

This aligns with earlier perceptions of some captains of finance or leading politicians as psychopaths. Previous research found they are freed by their selfish philosophy of life and their trivialising of other people from the restraints of being evenhanded, truthful or generous.

This new research also shows that a majority of psychopaths would even be willing to cause a global financial crisis - if they personally would profit from, for example, falling stock prices. This willingness holds true even when they could be personally identified as being the source of the crisis. Only a tiny minority of non-psychopaths would be willing to do this.
It's great to see the mention of political psychopathy here, because the results apply there too. Political leaders are willing to sacrifice both their enemies and their own people in the service of their own self-aggrandizement. They are willing to sell out their nations for personal benefits the nature of which would leave the vast majority of people bewildered. In practice this phenomenon appears under the euphemisms "managerialism" and "technocracy," among others. The people are made to believe that self-destructive policies, despite being unpopular, are somehow for their own good.

The nerds have run the numbers and therefore we need to import millions of foreigners and turn everything gay.

And they will do this "even when they could be personally identified as being the source of the crisis." They just don't care.

Race to the top
Financial insiders appear to agree with the assumption that psychopaths have always been prevalent in the sector. Many psychologists and other management commentators have come to the same conclusion.

Researchers have also found that interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits - such as deceitfulness, superficial charm and a lack of remorse - were associated with success in the finance sector.

Employees at financial institutions in New York scored significantly higher on these traits than people in the wider community. They also had significantly lower levels of emotional intelligence (as would be expected of psychopaths).

What's more, having psychopathic traits has also been linked to higher annual incomes - as well as a higher rank within the corporation.

In other words, it looks like the more psychopathic an employee is, the further up the corporate finance ladder they will go. This corresponds with findings that show there are more psychopaths at the top of organisations than at the bottom.
I think any sane person reading this would conclude that if this is the case, we are doing something fundamentally wrong. There are other ways.

Creating destruction
This is not to say that personal success in climbing the corporate ladder equates to professional success when someone reaches the top job. Quite the opposite. In fact, my research has shown that psychopathic leadership is associated with organisational destruction.

This includes a greater propensity to take risks with other people's money, a greater willingness to gamble with someone else's money and lower returns for shareholders.

In one study over a ten-year period, psychopathic fund managers were found to generate annual returns that were 30% lower than their less psychopathic peers.
As Lobaczewski said, the myth of the genius psychopath is just that. Anything they can do, we can do better.
The research team concluded that among elite financial investors, psychopathy and its appearance of personal dominance and competence, may enable people to rise to the top of their profession. But this does not translate into improved financial performance at the organisational level, where the presence of the psychopathic is actually counterproductive.

Fraud has always been associated with the psychopathic - so much so that in one study 69% of auditors believed they had encountered corporate psychopaths in relation to their investigations.

Years ago, one bank reportedly used a psychopathy measure to recruit staff. But I would advise against hiring people who score very highly, because they are totally concerned with personal success. They are not bothered about long-term organisational growth or sustainability. As such, decisions will be made to suit the psychopathic worker, and not the organisation.

For example, new hires would be likely to be people who can help the psychopath achieve their personal aims and objectives rather than aid the company. Anyone astute enough to potentially be a challenge to the psychopathic employee would not be hired by them in the first place.
Lobaczewski called this negative selection. When it happens within a political leadership structure, it creates a pathocracy, and the outcome for the nation in question is similar to that of the companies alluded to above.
Without exception, psychopathic people love money and they are more motivated by it than other people are.

Unlike the rest of the population, psychopaths are uninterested in higher values such as close emotional connections with family and friends, and much more focused on money and materialism. Seen through this lens, the appeal of the corporate banking sector - and the salaries and bonuses it offers - to people with these traits soon becomes clear.
When you see leaders making decisions obviously not in the interests of their citizens, getting rich in the process, and destroying their nation's higher values, e.g., through the destruction of the family by various means, these are diagnostic of political psychopathy. They don't "know better." They're not just expert managers implementing necessary policies that their people don't understand. They're political psychopaths, or said psychopaths' "new hires." I found a picture of a handful of them conveniently gathered for a photo:

The second article is by Eric W. Dolan and found on psypost.org, summarizing an academic paper arguing that "people high in psychopathy and low in cognitive ability are the most politically active online." I've cut some of the parts I don't find very interesting.
Most research on personality and political participation has focused on broad traits like the Big Five. But less attention has been paid to how darker traits — like psychopathy and narcissism — might shape who participates in politics, especially in the digital realm. Previous findings have shown that individuals high in these traits often seek power and attention, both of which can be satisfied through political engagement. Yet, studies have mainly focused on offline behavior and Western populations.
Online is the new offline. So it should be fairly obvious that online psychopathic personalities also seek power and attention. This is why I would not be surprised to learn that 90% of social media influencers are "dark" personalities. They present a good image on screen, but their personal lives rarely match up to the persona. And the rule from the previous article (the worst are more likely to make it to the top) applies equally. That is not to mention the morass of psychological deformity inhabiting the comments sections. (Present company excluded, of course, aside from the small handful of people I've banned over the years for lacking self-control and basic manners.)
The rise of social media has opened new channels for political action. It has also created environments that reward impulsivity, emotional expression, and the desire for attention — traits closely tied to psychopathy, narcissism, and FoMO. At the same time, people vary in their ability to critically evaluate information, raising the question of whether cognitive ability moderates how personality traits translate into political participation. The researchers aimed to explore how these psychological and cognitive factors interact to shape online political behavior across cultures. ...
Another self-evident truth that only requires a five-minute stroll through X avenue. Pick a post, any post, and read the comments section. It's below lowest-common-denominator. The signal-to-noise ration is abysmal. And yet practically ever poster is absolutely certain they are right, about everything. Egotism is the number one rule for political commentary.
The researchers conducted a large-scale survey in June 2022 using data from over 8,000 participants in eight countries: the United States, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. ... Participants completed validated questionnaires assessing psychopathy, narcissism, fear of missing out (FoMO), and cognitive ability.

Online political participation was measured by asking how often participants engaged in six different online political activities (such as commenting on political posts or sharing political content) over the past year. Psychopathy and narcissism were assessed using a short version of the Dark Triad scale. ...

Across all eight countries, higher levels of psychopathy and FoMO were consistently linked to greater online political participation. In contrast, narcissism was only associated with political participation in three countries: the United States, the Philippines, and Thailand. This suggests that psychopathy and FoMO may be more universal predictors of online political activity, while the influence of narcissism could be shaped by cultural norms.

Cognitive ability, on the other hand, showed a consistent negative relationship with online political participation. In all countries studied, individuals with higher cognitive scores were less likely to engage in online political activities. This pattern was especially strong in Singapore and Malaysia.
The dumber you are, the more you post.

The smarter you are, the more you doubt.

The more you doubt, the more you notice.

The more you notice, the more you poast.
The researchers also examined how cognitive ability influenced the relationships between personality traits and political participation. Among individuals with lower cognitive ability, the link between psychopathy and political engagement was stronger in five countries: the United States, China, Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines. ...

The one notable exception was China. In that country, psychopathy was more strongly associated with political engagement among individuals with higher cognitive ability. This indicates that the dynamics between personality, cognition, and political behavior can differ across national or cultural settings.
Fascinating.
"The most important takeaway from this study is that psychopathy and fear of missing out (FoMO) are strong and consistent predictors of online political participation across countries," Ahmed told PsyPost. "Moreover, the combination of high psychopathy and low cognitive ability appears to drive the highest levels of engagement, highlighting that those most active in online political spaces are often motivated less by civic-mindedness and more by psychological and cognitive factors. This underscores the importance of considering personality-cognition interactions when understanding who participates in digital political discourse and why."

The results suggest that emotional and impulsive traits may drive some people to become more involved in online politics, particularly if they lack strong critical thinking skills. People high in psychopathy may be attracted to the combative, attention-seeking nature of digital political discourse. ...
A good thing to keep in mind when pol-posting.
Meanwhile, individuals with higher cognitive ability may be more cautious or selective in their online political engagement. They may be better at evaluating the quality of information, recognizing misinformation, or assessing the risks of political expression in online spaces. This could explain why cognitive ability weakens the effect of dark personality traits on political participation in most countries.

In collectivist societies like China, Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, narcissism was not significantly linked to political participation. This may reflect cultural norms that discourage overt self-promotion or public displays of individual importance. In contrast, more individualistic societies like the United States and the Philippines may provide a more fertile ground for narcissists to seek attention through political activity.

The findings raise questions about the nature and quality of online political participation. If people who are more impulsive, emotionally driven, or self-focused are also more politically active online, what does this mean for democratic discourse in digital spaces? Previous research suggests that individuals high in psychopathy and narcissism are more likely to spread misinformation, engage in online harassment, and promote extreme views. This study adds to the concern that these traits may disproportionately influence online political conversations. ...

"If certain personality traits and cognitive factors disproportionately drive participation, there is a risk that online political spaces may overrepresent voices shaped by these traits, potentially influencing the tone, content, and polarization of discourse. This has implications not only for understanding who participates, but also for how democratic dialogue is shaped in digital environments."
It's easy to see how results like this will only embolden the more intelligent political psychopaths to "do something" about the low-quality discourse on social media. They've already been doing it for years, under the guise of "protecting" against "misinformation."

It's also fairly easy to see the researchers' own political biases reflected in the final two paragraphs above. I don't trust any research findings on "misinformation." The term is so politically charged that is little more than a catch-all paramoralism for "wrong-think." Same with "extreme views," to some degree. The mainstream political class has been implementing some quite "extreme" views and policies for decades, thus normalizing them to the point that when you call them extreme, people get confused. By contrast, some quite traditional and universal ideas have been revalued as "extreme." This is a paralogical reversal — another hallmark of the political psychopath.

Without an understanding of ponerology, policymakers and their supporters risk attempting to cure a disease they do not understand. If they attack symptoms (e.g., "misinformation," tone, content, polarization), they will fail, because these stem from deeper problems, which are at their root psychobiological (and structural-demographic) in nature