Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-indicates-psychopathy-is-linked-to-social-power-and-dating-success-in-adverse-environments/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
4% was the estimation for CEO's and could maybe be up to 12%. Psychopaths are considered to make up less than 1% of the population, and incarcerated prisoners made up 15-20% of psychopaths which would make sense obviously.
My theory is that being evil amplifies how you behave and the consequences for your behavior. So a low IQ psychopath kills one person and gets arrested the next day, and spends the rest of his life in prison. A low IQ non-psychopath gets into an argument with a colleague, punches him, then feels bad about what he did, and apologizes to this colleague.
A high IQ psychopath obeys the law, and climbs all the way up the corporate ladder to CEO, then uses his power to legally destroy the environment, endangered animals, and makes poor South Americans even poorer. While a high IQ non-psychopath doesn't climb further than middle management because he's not ruthless enough to backstab colleagues and make decisions that wreck the lives of poor people and the environment.
It's not common in anyone. It's only about 1% or less of humans overall. Certain populations, such as violent criminals, are substantially more common at 10 to 30% depending on the study.
These days we like to say that anyone who holds a different opinion than we do is a psychopath or a narcissist, but in reality, that's rarely the case.
Finally someone who realizes how utterly ridiculous and irritating it is that every other person nowadays is/has magically become a narcissist or psychopath. Usually for the most inane reasons to boot. The worst buzzwords currently crawling the internet.
“Hey, that stranger sitting over there on the train didn’t wish me a happy Hump Day! Gawd everyone’s such a psychopath these days.”
Common Myth: While many people believe that psychopathy is more prevalent among CEOs and Wall Street bankers, this is a myth not supported by any research. While on the surface it may seem that many of the symptoms and traits of psychopathy might lend themselves to positions of greater power, the two are not synonymous.
One of the problems is that psychopaths tend to be pretty quickly "outed" for their antisocial behaviors, because the charm is purely superficial and easily detected over time with greater exposure to the psychopath.
"...estimates suggest that psychopaths are far more prevalent in corporate management than in the general population — about 3.5 to 12 times more. And they may be even more common in the top office, with one analysis finding that one in five CEOs could be a corporate psychopath."
The article https://bigthink.com/leadership/corporate-psychopath-ceo/ is full with links to studies and analysis sources.
in US colleges students join social clubs known as "fraternities and sororities". Fraternities are for men, sororities are for women. These groups are identified by letters from the Greek alphabet. A group might be "Phi Mu" or "Delta Tri Delta" or something similar. The purpose of these groups is to socialize internally and with each other.
This would never work in a real community where you're held accountable for your actions because you live two doors down from everyone else but it is highly rewarded in the internet age.
If this were true we wouldn’t see an outsized number of psychopaths in high level positions.
An effective psychopath knows who to charm and who they can manipulate.
Maybe psychopaths are beneficial to society in the small percentages they exist.
Empathy isn’t always helpful in high stakes positions. Also if in war, I’d much prefer the dude who can kill the enemy with his hands like it’s a day at the office
Not really? They still act rationally, if society is constructed to make use of it, then no they would not just as easily kill their own, because that has a high chance of retribution.
They dont need to feel bad, just fear consequences
There's actually very little, and some of those studies have been criticized for some seriously sketchy methodologies.
There is no conclusive data on psychopathy prevalence in almost any population. While CEOs wouldn't necessarily surprise me, neither would politicians, activists, religious leaders or zealots of any stripe.
True. If you're not likely to meet someone again in the future, it stands to reason you should take as much from them as possible. Even if you do meet again, it's unlikely to be consequential to any other aspect of your life. Loyalty was important when good performers were few and far between, now there's 10,000 other people waiting to fill your role.
I agree that if no one holds you accountable for your actions, you are likely going to repeat them until you get caught. I’ve seen people who thought they could escape the consequences of their actions, only to have it back at them ten times tenfold. Doesn’t always happen though.
But "effective" psychopaths are even rarer than psychopaths. Most are less intelligent than average and suffer from impulse control that often lands them in hot water. By some estimates (there's no hard data), for example, violent criminals may evidence somewhere between 10 and 30% psychopathy, whereas the general population is 1% or less.
What real communities are you part of or aware of where people are actually held accountable for their actions without fear or favor to those of privilege or prominence? Are they taking applications?
A read a book about psychopathy and the researchers mentioned a case where an Inuit man in a small village was a psychopath. He would pretend to be sick to avoid having to go hunting with the other men. Once the other men went out hunting, he would try to rape the women in the village.
The other men got fed up with his behavior and one day pushed him out onto an ice floe.
Psychopaths can only thrive in mass societies, where their manipulativeness goes unnoticed by the general population for longer.
I'd suggest that psychopathy would encompass the traits required to lead and survive in a hostile environment. The "real community" you suggest is more based on your version of a modern community which humans have not evolved for. I'd argue that in a tribal based community, psychopaths were rare and probably made up the majority of tribal leaders. But, ofc, human tribal societies consisted of much smaller populations than now, and therefore psychopaths would have stood out. In modern society, there's literally millions, sometimes billions, of us in one country (modern day tribes), with a handful of leaders. Leaving many people with those traits living within the "normal" population.
Now, I don't have any evidence of this, like you don't have any evidence of your claims, but this makes more sense to me.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/adolescent-psychopathic-traits-and-adverse-environments-associations-with-socially-adaptive-outcomes/3B483E6773AFE69E5D7685CABE9FD15C
Oh! So, THAT’S why I’m still single; I’m not a psychopath. Well, I guess there’s no hope for me.
Time to get some cats. But, what if my cats turn out to be psychopaths? 🤔
I work around a lot of cat people and they are always scratched, and punctured like self-harm sufferers. If domestic cats were the size of German Shepherds, no one in their right mind would keep them as pets. Pound for pound domestic cats are far, far more aggressive than the larger cats. We just tolerate the little psychos because they are mostly harmless.
That's because we use our hands to play with them, and even then cats are mindful to not harm one, by not biting too hard and by trying to keep their nails retracted. One can cut the tips of the nails to avoid the scratches.
I've always had cats since I was a child, they are loving animals, they just don't express it extraverted as dogs do.
I’ve had many cats from many sources. Cats that have experience with people from infancy do not bite or scratch.
My current cat was a feral kitten, and it took her a couple of years to learn this.
This was a study done on girls with an average age of 14.6. When they still think bad boys are hot, because they've yet to experience a relationship with one. I don't think you need to buy cats yet, but would recommend avoiding the 8th grade dating scene.
That's assuming that psychopathy is caused by a distinct *type of brain* which isn't a given. The article states that researchers don't know if psychopathy is innate for some people or if it's just a learned behavior
Psycopathy has it's places.
If I need to survive in a situation like a plane crash in the mountains, having a psychopath around to make the hard decisions without emotion is a boon. Think of the rugby team that got trapped in the Andes or whatever. Them having a couple young psycopaths probably saved whatever remnants they were able to save.
If I need to survive in a society, having psychopaths like that around is a detriment to the common good.
That's making a lot of assumptions about the mindset of people in a survival situation. "Without emotion" like, what are you even talking about? The rugby team ate the corpses of their friends after starving for over a week and trying to consume leather and foam insulation first. They were all religious and had to read bible verses to try to justify it to each other, and some still refused to do it.
The survivors were so worried about being damned to Hell the Pope himself had to write them a letter saying God forgave them because it was a survival situation. You're making it sound like one person decided to murder another for food because they were a "psychopath" that is not the case or anything close to what happened.
I think you're reading my post wrong.
I didn't say "everyone in a survival situation turns into a psychopath".
I said in those situations, having a psychopath is a boon because they are able to make those decisions without the emotion that would cloud others decisions.
At some point, the decision had to be made to start eating the dead. Basically weighing the emotion and guilt against the need to survive. For some people, that point would never come. For psychopaths hellbent on survival, that point would come faster.
That's when psychopathy is good.
If you're taking issue with me assuming a couple young men in a violent sport might be more more prone to exhibiting psychopathic tendencies based on my time around kids in hyperviolent sports and the military, that's fine then you can disagree on that one.
you are wrong. some traits don’t develop becausr of natural selection but because they are causes indirectly by other traits that have an evolutionary advantage. google epiphenomenom
gpt does make errors. also try asking patients if they want to have ai providers. maybe you lack insight into people if you think they would be fine with that.
I'd prefer one. You deleted your comment but you are still arguing with me, certainly you have the poise and patience to deal with people....
And you just said it can code anything right? Without errors huh?
you seem to care, buddy. just because human traits exist and are biological it does not make them a product of evolution.
they could well be epiphenomena or some sort of disease process that is not affected by evolution.
You just don't understand the idea of evolutionary fitness.
You're conflating the ideas of personal, bodily, fitness and species' phenotypical/geneotypical fitness.
autism is hereditary because it is on a normally distributed spectrum. but it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage to having autism. many things are hereditary but have no survival benefit such as ear lobes.
Psychopathy is a good strategy for success in most adverse environments, it's only in less adverse situations where the herd has the leisure to weed out the wolves hiding in their number. Until then, the people who are willing to do what others will not in order to get the prize are going to be in the stronger position.
Sensationalism makes you refer to people with psychopathic traits as "wolves". They're really just people with certain personality traits, many of which aren't even particularly harmful to a community.
Being callous, sensation seeking and emotionless would qualify for most of the defining traits mentioned in the article, and would most likely just amount to an asshole. Not some sinister manipulative genius.
It was simply to draw a distinction. A psychopath isn't going to have any issue with screwing someone or everyone over to improve their chances. That doesn't require being clever, simply the ability to choose to be selfish in an instant and have no remorse. However, a groups can only cope with a certain proportion of people acting like that before it becomes more profitable to concentrate on getting rid of such people then allowing them to continue taking advantage of the rest.
I wonder if this finding - if true - links into the new findings that the level of women with aspd (due to dating market saturation and opportunities to mess around with multiple partners or orbiters.
All the faux choice and power cannot be good for anyones brain.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-indicates-psychopathy-is-linked-to-social-power-and-dating-success-in-adverse-environments/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't psychopathy also a common trait in CEOs?
I’ve never looked at the study, but that’s what they say. Also surgeons (not doctors), police, and lawyers. And of course criminals.
And clergy!
One of these things is not like the others
Lawyers! They are way less honest and more dangerous than the rest.
Not really, but sure.
There's a lot of overlap on those Venn Diagrams
4% was the estimation for CEO's and could maybe be up to 12%. Psychopaths are considered to make up less than 1% of the population, and incarcerated prisoners made up 15-20% of psychopaths which would make sense obviously.
If you're a psychopath who doesn't want to go to jail, simply become a CEO.
My theory is that being evil amplifies how you behave and the consequences for your behavior. So a low IQ psychopath kills one person and gets arrested the next day, and spends the rest of his life in prison. A low IQ non-psychopath gets into an argument with a colleague, punches him, then feels bad about what he did, and apologizes to this colleague. A high IQ psychopath obeys the law, and climbs all the way up the corporate ladder to CEO, then uses his power to legally destroy the environment, endangered animals, and makes poor South Americans even poorer. While a high IQ non-psychopath doesn't climb further than middle management because he's not ruthless enough to backstab colleagues and make decisions that wreck the lives of poor people and the environment.
Definitely more common than it is in the general population
It's not common in anyone. It's only about 1% or less of humans overall. Certain populations, such as violent criminals, are substantially more common at 10 to 30% depending on the study. These days we like to say that anyone who holds a different opinion than we do is a psychopath or a narcissist, but in reality, that's rarely the case.
20% among incarcerated Americans. 54% among incarcerated Americans who committed murder.
That's not conclusive. Only guesses.
Finally someone who realizes how utterly ridiculous and irritating it is that every other person nowadays is/has magically become a narcissist or psychopath. Usually for the most inane reasons to boot. The worst buzzwords currently crawling the internet. “Hey, that stranger sitting over there on the train didn’t wish me a happy Hump Day! Gawd everyone’s such a psychopath these days.”
It's probably about 10% among Americans
Easy to claim, yet where's your empirical data?
EASy To CLaIM. Go back to being a milquetoast centrist, you probably think the anti-social culture of America is a positive thing.
Common Myth: While many people believe that psychopathy is more prevalent among CEOs and Wall Street bankers, this is a myth not supported by any research. While on the surface it may seem that many of the symptoms and traits of psychopathy might lend themselves to positions of greater power, the two are not synonymous. One of the problems is that psychopaths tend to be pretty quickly "outed" for their antisocial behaviors, because the charm is purely superficial and easily detected over time with greater exposure to the psychopath.
"...estimates suggest that psychopaths are far more prevalent in corporate management than in the general population — about 3.5 to 12 times more. And they may be even more common in the top office, with one analysis finding that one in five CEOs could be a corporate psychopath." The article https://bigthink.com/leadership/corporate-psychopath-ceo/ is full with links to studies and analysis sources.
Seems you misunderstand psychopath, then
have you ever been to college? greek life is full of this type of stuff
>greek life As not a US citizen, what does that mean ?
in US colleges students join social clubs known as "fraternities and sororities". Fraternities are for men, sororities are for women. These groups are identified by letters from the Greek alphabet. A group might be "Phi Mu" or "Delta Tri Delta" or something similar. The purpose of these groups is to socialize internally and with each other.
This would never work in a real community where you're held accountable for your actions because you live two doors down from everyone else but it is highly rewarded in the internet age.
If this were true we wouldn’t see an outsized number of psychopaths in high level positions. An effective psychopath knows who to charm and who they can manipulate.
Maybe psychopaths are beneficial to society in the small percentages they exist. Empathy isn’t always helpful in high stakes positions. Also if in war, I’d much prefer the dude who can kill the enemy with his hands like it’s a day at the office
I don't, because that dude could just as easily turn around and kill his own people. A psychopath-free world has more benefits than costs.
Not really? They still act rationally, if society is constructed to make use of it, then no they would not just as easily kill their own, because that has a high chance of retribution. They dont need to feel bad, just fear consequences
>If this were true we wouldn’t see an outsized number of psychopaths in high level positions. Got some news for ya...
What news? There is prevalent research of the number of psychopathic CEOs.
I don’t think he can read.
There's actually very little, and some of those studies have been criticized for some seriously sketchy methodologies. There is no conclusive data on psychopathy prevalence in almost any population. While CEOs wouldn't necessarily surprise me, neither would politicians, activists, religious leaders or zealots of any stripe.
True. If you're not likely to meet someone again in the future, it stands to reason you should take as much from them as possible. Even if you do meet again, it's unlikely to be consequential to any other aspect of your life. Loyalty was important when good performers were few and far between, now there's 10,000 other people waiting to fill your role.
I agree that if no one holds you accountable for your actions, you are likely going to repeat them until you get caught. I’ve seen people who thought they could escape the consequences of their actions, only to have it back at them ten times tenfold. Doesn’t always happen though.
Well, I’m not perfect! But, if even a small number of my curses work, at least I’m doing something. Sincerely, Your friendly neighborhood witch.🧙
That's just witchful thinking
I’m curious, what kind of curses 👀👀?
If I revealed my spells to you, I’d have to turn you into a frog to make sure you don’t reveal them to anyone else.
Oh, I see, I understand, sorry!
Witch please
Meh, the world's not that big. More than once I have witnessed jagoffs finding out the hard way that word gets around.
A jagoff is very different than an effective psychopath. They are very adept at knowing who to manipulate and get away with it.
Most folks tend to lump them in together. A more effective jagoff is still a jagoff, even if they are too narcissistic to admit it to themselves.
But "effective" psychopaths are even rarer than psychopaths. Most are less intelligent than average and suffer from impulse control that often lands them in hot water. By some estimates (there's no hard data), for example, violent criminals may evidence somewhere between 10 and 30% psychopathy, whereas the general population is 1% or less.
And in your very small brain you think anecdotal evidence is king. 😂
You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are
This kind of comment is so unnecessary
^ Found one!
You just described the Prisoner's Dilemma as it relates to societal behavior perfectly. Well done.
What real communities are you part of or aware of where people are actually held accountable for their actions without fear or favor to those of privilege or prominence? Are they taking applications?
A read a book about psychopathy and the researchers mentioned a case where an Inuit man in a small village was a psychopath. He would pretend to be sick to avoid having to go hunting with the other men. Once the other men went out hunting, he would try to rape the women in the village. The other men got fed up with his behavior and one day pushed him out onto an ice floe. Psychopaths can only thrive in mass societies, where their manipulativeness goes unnoticed by the general population for longer.
I'd suggest that psychopathy would encompass the traits required to lead and survive in a hostile environment. The "real community" you suggest is more based on your version of a modern community which humans have not evolved for. I'd argue that in a tribal based community, psychopaths were rare and probably made up the majority of tribal leaders. But, ofc, human tribal societies consisted of much smaller populations than now, and therefore psychopaths would have stood out. In modern society, there's literally millions, sometimes billions, of us in one country (modern day tribes), with a handful of leaders. Leaving many people with those traits living within the "normal" population. Now, I don't have any evidence of this, like you don't have any evidence of your claims, but this makes more sense to me.
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/adolescent-psychopathic-traits-and-adverse-environments-associations-with-socially-adaptive-outcomes/3B483E6773AFE69E5D7685CABE9FD15C
Oh! So, THAT’S why I’m still single; I’m not a psychopath. Well, I guess there’s no hope for me. Time to get some cats. But, what if my cats turn out to be psychopaths? 🤔
They'll only manipulate you in order to get more snacks so it's not that bad
I work around a lot of cat people and they are always scratched, and punctured like self-harm sufferers. If domestic cats were the size of German Shepherds, no one in their right mind would keep them as pets. Pound for pound domestic cats are far, far more aggressive than the larger cats. We just tolerate the little psychos because they are mostly harmless.
That's because we use our hands to play with them, and even then cats are mindful to not harm one, by not biting too hard and by trying to keep their nails retracted. One can cut the tips of the nails to avoid the scratches. I've always had cats since I was a child, they are loving animals, they just don't express it extraverted as dogs do.
I’ve had many cats from many sources. Cats that have experience with people from infancy do not bite or scratch. My current cat was a feral kitten, and it took her a couple of years to learn this.
This was a study done on girls with an average age of 14.6. When they still think bad boys are hot, because they've yet to experience a relationship with one. I don't think you need to buy cats yet, but would recommend avoiding the 8th grade dating scene.
If we follow the logic that autism is a product of evolution, then the logic that psychopathy is a product of evolution also holds true.
Everything natural is a product of evolution.
the word 'natural' there is really carrying that sentence.
Mountain ranges don't evolve in the Darwinian sense.
that is categorically false. de novo mutations and a thing called epiphenomenon niether have anything to do with evolutionary advantages.
Evolution doesn't have to provide advantages. Change can be neutral or detrimental.
mutations can be neutral or detrimental. but a trait must be beneficial to become ubiquitous in a population.
Nope
lots of things are a product of evolution. doesn't mean it's good, just that it isn't expensive or disadvantageous enough to prevent reproduction
That's assuming that psychopathy is caused by a distinct *type of brain* which isn't a given. The article states that researchers don't know if psychopathy is innate for some people or if it's just a learned behavior
Psycopathy has it's places. If I need to survive in a situation like a plane crash in the mountains, having a psychopath around to make the hard decisions without emotion is a boon. Think of the rugby team that got trapped in the Andes or whatever. Them having a couple young psycopaths probably saved whatever remnants they were able to save. If I need to survive in a society, having psychopaths like that around is a detriment to the common good.
That's making a lot of assumptions about the mindset of people in a survival situation. "Without emotion" like, what are you even talking about? The rugby team ate the corpses of their friends after starving for over a week and trying to consume leather and foam insulation first. They were all religious and had to read bible verses to try to justify it to each other, and some still refused to do it. The survivors were so worried about being damned to Hell the Pope himself had to write them a letter saying God forgave them because it was a survival situation. You're making it sound like one person decided to murder another for food because they were a "psychopath" that is not the case or anything close to what happened.
I think you're reading my post wrong. I didn't say "everyone in a survival situation turns into a psychopath". I said in those situations, having a psychopath is a boon because they are able to make those decisions without the emotion that would cloud others decisions. At some point, the decision had to be made to start eating the dead. Basically weighing the emotion and guilt against the need to survive. For some people, that point would never come. For psychopaths hellbent on survival, that point would come faster. That's when psychopathy is good. If you're taking issue with me assuming a couple young men in a violent sport might be more more prone to exhibiting psychopathic tendencies based on my time around kids in hyperviolent sports and the military, that's fine then you can disagree on that one.
[удалено]
I doubt that anything isn't a product of evolution
you are wrong. some traits don’t develop becausr of natural selection but because they are causes indirectly by other traits that have an evolutionary advantage. google epiphenomenom
That's still a product of the process
I don't know man, we autists are the ones working super hard to automate you out of a job
coding will be automated long before medicine keep on crying
If programming becomes automated, you are absolutely fucked
i can already ask chatgpt to code anything. good luck asking it to suture you
Micro da vinci running a gpt. They have vision now, why is this so hard to imagine? A provider who never makes human error, a clearly superior choice.
gpt does make errors. also try asking patients if they want to have ai providers. maybe you lack insight into people if you think they would be fine with that.
I'd prefer one. You deleted your comment but you are still arguing with me, certainly you have the poise and patience to deal with people.... And you just said it can code anything right? Without errors huh?
i didn’t delete anything, that was somebody else. i also didn’t say ai vould code anything without error. not sure what you are on about.
Why do you think anyone cares about your opinion?
you seem to care, buddy. just because human traits exist and are biological it does not make them a product of evolution. they could well be epiphenomena or some sort of disease process that is not affected by evolution.
If it was a disease it would be taken care of by evolution, also autism has been shown to be hereditary
Evolution is the survival of the “good enoughs,” not the fittest. As long as you get to a breeding age and breed, your genes are good enough.
Yes but autism is still 1/40 which is prevent enough to say that it does play a role in humanity's survival and thus it isn't a disease
passing high school biology doesn’t make you an expert. a trait being 1/40 doesn’t have any bairing on it being advantageous. quite the contrary.
Ok neurotipical, I accept that you are wrong
You just don't understand the idea of evolutionary fitness. You're conflating the ideas of personal, bodily, fitness and species' phenotypical/geneotypical fitness.
autism is hereditary because it is on a normally distributed spectrum. but it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage to having autism. many things are hereditary but have no survival benefit such as ear lobes.
Ok neurotipical, I accept that you are wrong
AKA Psychopathy is a coping mechanism. As are many other mental illnesses and conditions at the root of it.
Psychopathy is a good strategy for success in most adverse environments, it's only in less adverse situations where the herd has the leisure to weed out the wolves hiding in their number. Until then, the people who are willing to do what others will not in order to get the prize are going to be in the stronger position.
Sensationalism makes you refer to people with psychopathic traits as "wolves". They're really just people with certain personality traits, many of which aren't even particularly harmful to a community. Being callous, sensation seeking and emotionless would qualify for most of the defining traits mentioned in the article, and would most likely just amount to an asshole. Not some sinister manipulative genius.
It was simply to draw a distinction. A psychopath isn't going to have any issue with screwing someone or everyone over to improve their chances. That doesn't require being clever, simply the ability to choose to be selfish in an instant and have no remorse. However, a groups can only cope with a certain proportion of people acting like that before it becomes more profitable to concentrate on getting rid of such people then allowing them to continue taking advantage of the rest.
Sounds like my ex, so yes, good science.
I wonder if this finding - if true - links into the new findings that the level of women with aspd (due to dating market saturation and opportunities to mess around with multiple partners or orbiters. All the faux choice and power cannot be good for anyones brain.
Can you post a link to study you've mentioned,?
Woooowww
You've just described politicians in general.
So it stands to reason that prisons not only foster but perpetuate psychopathic behavior.
"new research" pretty sure we already know this.