I think the time is right for these ideas to be published as a graphic-novel-style non-fiction book. “A Pocket Guide to Power-Hungry Psychos: How to spot them and keep them out of office!”
At some point - when a psychopath diagnosis is finally objectively verifiable through fMRI or other tools - every person seeking public office should be required to undergo psychopath testing. If positive, it’s disqualifying. Period. Where u = PB - C is modified to u = (PB - C)/PF, and PF is the “psychopath factor.” When a political candidate tests positive as a psychopath, PF = 0, which yields an absurdity and is disqualifying…
Public service requires empathy and we’ve for too long empowered those who have not a scintilla of it...
Unfortunately, too many non-psychopaths are taken in by the false charm of the psychopaths and elect them. Of course, a psychopath has no problem twisting facts or inventing them to persuade people he's the best for the job.
I’ve been fascinated by the subject of psychopathy for a long time. I had a close college friend who I have later in life suspected of being one. This person admitted to me a few times he “has no morals” and generally believed that someone doing an altruistic or self-sacrificial thing was “stupid.” He seemed bemused when I told him I felt bad about some real or hypothetical behavior. (Like a typical teenager, I was not a good judge of character when I was young; I hung out with him mainly because he was fun, charismatic, and amusing.)
He definitely had a thirst for power and was very grandiose in his ambitions. This piece is a very lucid explanation of how these traits self-select psychopaths into powerful positions.
It also remind me of reading how in the first US presidential elections, it was unseemly for someone to declare their candidacy. They had to at least make a pretense of being pushed into it by their peers based on their leadership qualities. In this sense, it was more like the papal conclave what we have today. We might be much better served if this norm persisted. (Although I might have to take that back, because some of the popes in Vatican’s history were certifiable psychopaths.)
"... it was unseemly for someone to declare their candidacy. They had to at least make a pretense of being pushed into it by their peers based on their leadership qualities."
In Thomas More's novel " Utopia", anyone who pushes themselves forward for public office is permanently banned from politics. Yeah, that is indeed utopian...
Thank you, Brian. It is disturbing to me to see recent voices on the right being raised against the whole notion of empathy as a good human trait. In the context of your article, this sounds like “In Praise of Psychopathy”! Empathy, it seems to me, is an essential component of good leadership. I don’t think there will ever be a leader who doesn’t rank high on a scale of narcissism and who isn’t to some degree Machiavellian. It is the absence of empathy and the resultant psychopathy that turns the other elements of the triad dark. The narcissist with empathy can expand their sense of self to include seeing themselves in others and seeking “self” glorification in doing something good for humanity. And to be effective they need to be strategic and calculating in pursuit of their goals - Machiavellian. I think it is odd that leaders are sometimes criticized in the media for trying to do certain things ‘just because they are concerned about their legacy’. If what they are trying to is “good” - driven by empathy and concern for others, not just a raw display of power over others - what could possibly be wrong with them seeking a grand legacy? Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, ML King likely all ranked high on scales of narcissism and could certainly be strategic and calculating. But they were not psychopaths so they deserve their monuments.
In 2025, the dark triad is SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congress. These branches of power were designed to prevent each other from becoming malignant. A laudable goal, but obviously they are no longer functioning as intended, with the current cast of characters. Unfortunately, the voters gave them a 4 year contract. In the business world they would be fired instantly.
To believe that psychopathy leads to clearer thinking is absolutely wrong. Intellect void of feelings and emotions is completely flawed. They quickly veer into rationalizations and justifications that are illogical, without any insight that it has gone awry. People cut off from feelings are convinced that they are logical and superior thinkers but they lack the ability to see how shallow their thought processes are. Proof is all around us.
we are left with few models for a sensible style of government. That is mainly because everything that has made it into the most common history books is some form of male on top, king, etc. The next thing most people who have any learning at all will quote is the Greek democracy or even the Swiss Cantons but the same problem still prevails. Who really wants the top job for the best possible reason --the good of the people.
America once had one of the best models for choosing leaders and it began as early as 500 years before Columbus. When the four tribes (later 5) of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) were united as a nation they chose what may have been a unique method of selecting leaders.
As in many early cultures the roles of men and women were separate. Men did the hunting and other heavy lifting such as negotiating with other tribes. Women, in addition to many other tasks raised the children. From their earliest years the women studied the youngsters looking for traits that would make them good leaders in the future. Traits like bullying, selfishness, cowardice were noted and when these boys became young men it was the women who decided who should be in the leadership roles. One way a child could guarantee he would not be chosen was to ask to be chosen. That probably eliminated those that were mentally and socially unfit.
Why only boys? One of the major roles of the leaders was negotiating with other less enlightened tribes so it solved the problem of sexism at the negotiating fire.
There is little left to learn from so called Western History when it comes to governance. Creativity is not exclusive to the Arts. The importance of new ideas (even if they are 1000 years old) cannot be underestimated.
I think that we might want to consider the personality traits that would be most susceptible to Dark Triad manipulation. My view would be Devoted, Vigilant, Self-Sacrificing, and Self-Confident personality types would be drawn to that bandwagon. Counter messaging would include skepticism, reassurance, gratitude, and praise. Got to fight fire with fire.
Brian - Once again an excellent article, thank you for your unique insights. As I read this I was reminded of what James Madison said in one of the Federalist Papers. “If we were all angels we would have no need for government. If only angels were in government, we would not need the separation of powers.” Of course we are not all angels and, as you point out, there are not very many angels in government.
Brian, I think you are using "psychopath" where "sociopath" is the more applicable term. Here's a link to a "Psychology Today" article discussing the two terms and the difference between them.
Absolutely. I'm so glad you addressed this topic. From my armchair, I tend to look at many politicians, who shall remain nameless, and see in them the narcissist. Some don't seem to have the intelligence required to be a Machiavellian. It seems some narcissistic traits are required to get elected, but the politician's values are such that I would call them good people. One question I'm asking over and over is, how can ordinarily good people become bad people under the right conditions? Are they narcissistic and/or psycopathic but have never been put in or achieved a position in which those traits can be expressed? And then when they are they become coldly ruthless?
Yes, I've read about that experiment. I've also read that the experiment was flawed. Have you read the Kindly Ones? Its fictional but addresses my question without answering it conclusively.
I haven't read 'The kindly ones'. I don't read much fiction.
The wikipedia article mentions a criticism: "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".
That still means that 34% of people that thought it was real obeyed, which is chilling.
Though psychopathy may occur more frequently in politicians, it seems an equally fair number might succeed in politics by being passive followers, going along to get along. Sort of a symbiotic mixture.
In line with the Adams quote, I once read a throwaway line in a science-fiction novel (by Clarke I think, although I haven't been able to find it again): “In the late 20th Century, we decided that the only absolute disqualification for holding public office was the desire to do so.”
Having, prior to my retirement met several unsuccessful psychopaths, I assume, I often didn’t find it very useful or prescriptive to categorise them so - apart from noting some of Cleckly’s traits in their history wrt future risk of reoffending), I liked your article and it made sense in terms of how I see the world.
The problem is, of course, what to do. Those who climb the ladder are pretty aware of the risks they run (possibly having exploited them against the previous incumbents of their positions). I have no answer to this question.
I think the time is right for these ideas to be published as a graphic-novel-style non-fiction book. “A Pocket Guide to Power-Hungry Psychos: How to spot them and keep them out of office!”
At some point - when a psychopath diagnosis is finally objectively verifiable through fMRI or other tools - every person seeking public office should be required to undergo psychopath testing. If positive, it’s disqualifying. Period. Where u = PB - C is modified to u = (PB - C)/PF, and PF is the “psychopath factor.” When a political candidate tests positive as a psychopath, PF = 0, which yields an absurdity and is disqualifying…
Public service requires empathy and we’ve for too long empowered those who have not a scintilla of it...
Unfortunately, too many non-psychopaths are taken in by the false charm of the psychopaths and elect them. Of course, a psychopath has no problem twisting facts or inventing them to persuade people he's the best for the job.
I’ve been fascinated by the subject of psychopathy for a long time. I had a close college friend who I have later in life suspected of being one. This person admitted to me a few times he “has no morals” and generally believed that someone doing an altruistic or self-sacrificial thing was “stupid.” He seemed bemused when I told him I felt bad about some real or hypothetical behavior. (Like a typical teenager, I was not a good judge of character when I was young; I hung out with him mainly because he was fun, charismatic, and amusing.)
He definitely had a thirst for power and was very grandiose in his ambitions. This piece is a very lucid explanation of how these traits self-select psychopaths into powerful positions.
It also remind me of reading how in the first US presidential elections, it was unseemly for someone to declare their candidacy. They had to at least make a pretense of being pushed into it by their peers based on their leadership qualities. In this sense, it was more like the papal conclave what we have today. We might be much better served if this norm persisted. (Although I might have to take that back, because some of the popes in Vatican’s history were certifiable psychopaths.)
"... it was unseemly for someone to declare their candidacy. They had to at least make a pretense of being pushed into it by their peers based on their leadership qualities."
In Thomas More's novel " Utopia", anyone who pushes themselves forward for public office is permanently banned from politics. Yeah, that is indeed utopian...
Thank you, Brian. It is disturbing to me to see recent voices on the right being raised against the whole notion of empathy as a good human trait. In the context of your article, this sounds like “In Praise of Psychopathy”! Empathy, it seems to me, is an essential component of good leadership. I don’t think there will ever be a leader who doesn’t rank high on a scale of narcissism and who isn’t to some degree Machiavellian. It is the absence of empathy and the resultant psychopathy that turns the other elements of the triad dark. The narcissist with empathy can expand their sense of self to include seeing themselves in others and seeking “self” glorification in doing something good for humanity. And to be effective they need to be strategic and calculating in pursuit of their goals - Machiavellian. I think it is odd that leaders are sometimes criticized in the media for trying to do certain things ‘just because they are concerned about their legacy’. If what they are trying to is “good” - driven by empathy and concern for others, not just a raw display of power over others - what could possibly be wrong with them seeking a grand legacy? Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, ML King likely all ranked high on scales of narcissism and could certainly be strategic and calculating. But they were not psychopaths so they deserve their monuments.
Why didn't Dr. Pinel try to stop the man from killing the dog?
I wondered the same thing.
In 2025, the dark triad is SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congress. These branches of power were designed to prevent each other from becoming malignant. A laudable goal, but obviously they are no longer functioning as intended, with the current cast of characters. Unfortunately, the voters gave them a 4 year contract. In the business world they would be fired instantly.
I would downgrade SCOTUS. Power hungry people with the chops to be on SCOTUS are more likely to end up millionaire partners at law firms.
To believe that psychopathy leads to clearer thinking is absolutely wrong. Intellect void of feelings and emotions is completely flawed. They quickly veer into rationalizations and justifications that are illogical, without any insight that it has gone awry. People cut off from feelings are convinced that they are logical and superior thinkers but they lack the ability to see how shallow their thought processes are. Proof is all around us.
we are left with few models for a sensible style of government. That is mainly because everything that has made it into the most common history books is some form of male on top, king, etc. The next thing most people who have any learning at all will quote is the Greek democracy or even the Swiss Cantons but the same problem still prevails. Who really wants the top job for the best possible reason --the good of the people.
America once had one of the best models for choosing leaders and it began as early as 500 years before Columbus. When the four tribes (later 5) of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) were united as a nation they chose what may have been a unique method of selecting leaders.
As in many early cultures the roles of men and women were separate. Men did the hunting and other heavy lifting such as negotiating with other tribes. Women, in addition to many other tasks raised the children. From their earliest years the women studied the youngsters looking for traits that would make them good leaders in the future. Traits like bullying, selfishness, cowardice were noted and when these boys became young men it was the women who decided who should be in the leadership roles. One way a child could guarantee he would not be chosen was to ask to be chosen. That probably eliminated those that were mentally and socially unfit.
Why only boys? One of the major roles of the leaders was negotiating with other less enlightened tribes so it solved the problem of sexism at the negotiating fire.
It is also interesting to know that Benjamin Franklin studied the ways of the Iroquois and brought his knowledge to the Continental Convention where he was one of 5 on the committee to create The Declaration of Independence. (https://thepenngazette.com/franklin-and-the-iroquois-foundations-of-the-constitution/).
There is little left to learn from so called Western History when it comes to governance. Creativity is not exclusive to the Arts. The importance of new ideas (even if they are 1000 years old) cannot be underestimated.
I think that we might want to consider the personality traits that would be most susceptible to Dark Triad manipulation. My view would be Devoted, Vigilant, Self-Sacrificing, and Self-Confident personality types would be drawn to that bandwagon. Counter messaging would include skepticism, reassurance, gratitude, and praise. Got to fight fire with fire.
Brian - Once again an excellent article, thank you for your unique insights. As I read this I was reminded of what James Madison said in one of the Federalist Papers. “If we were all angels we would have no need for government. If only angels were in government, we would not need the separation of powers.” Of course we are not all angels and, as you point out, there are not very many angels in government.
Brian, I think you are using "psychopath" where "sociopath" is the more applicable term. Here's a link to a "Psychology Today" article discussing the two terms and the difference between them.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202405/two-ways-to-tell-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-apart
In my opinion, some but probably not most politicians are sociopathic. Trump surely is.
I see Trump as a sociopath and Putin as a psychopath. Not that I'm in a position to diagnose them.
Yeah, I'm not in a position to diagnose either. But your view seems reasonable.
Absolutely. I'm so glad you addressed this topic. From my armchair, I tend to look at many politicians, who shall remain nameless, and see in them the narcissist. Some don't seem to have the intelligence required to be a Machiavellian. It seems some narcissistic traits are required to get elected, but the politician's values are such that I would call them good people. One question I'm asking over and over is, how can ordinarily good people become bad people under the right conditions? Are they narcissistic and/or psycopathic but have never been put in or achieved a position in which those traits can be expressed? And then when they are they become coldly ruthless?
The Milgram experiment shows that ordinary people will often do bad things, simply because they are instructed to by an authority figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
~99% of the citizens of Nazi Germany were not psychopaths.
Yes, I've read about that experiment. I've also read that the experiment was flawed. Have you read the Kindly Ones? Its fictional but addresses my question without answering it conclusively.
I haven't read 'The kindly ones'. I don't read much fiction.
The wikipedia article mentions a criticism: "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter".
That still means that 34% of people that thought it was real obeyed, which is chilling.
Though psychopathy may occur more frequently in politicians, it seems an equally fair number might succeed in politics by being passive followers, going along to get along. Sort of a symbiotic mixture.
In line with the Adams quote, I once read a throwaway line in a science-fiction novel (by Clarke I think, although I haven't been able to find it again): “In the late 20th Century, we decided that the only absolute disqualification for holding public office was the desire to do so.”
Having, prior to my retirement met several unsuccessful psychopaths, I assume, I often didn’t find it very useful or prescriptive to categorise them so - apart from noting some of Cleckly’s traits in their history wrt future risk of reoffending), I liked your article and it made sense in terms of how I see the world.
The problem is, of course, what to do. Those who climb the ladder are pretty aware of the risks they run (possibly having exploited them against the previous incumbents of their positions). I have no answer to this question.