About book The Wisdom Of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, And Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (2012)
There was a lot of set up to actually talking about the way psychopaths can teach us about success. And, even then, I didn't think there was much. It wasn't blatantly stated, but something one more had to assume. They can teach us how to keep a cool head in tough situations, about taking rejection well, about putting everything in and not being afraid to lose it. I mean, those are good traits, and I agree with the statement that there are functional psychopaths rather than them all just turning out to be serial killers. One of my main objections of the book is that it did not generate any progress in the study or understanding of psychopathy. The author took the term “psychopathy” that has been clinically defined based on an evolution of psychological understanding and misapplied it beyond its natural intention. He could have analyzed the basic personality traits that a psychopath maintains and compared it to the personality traits of a successful professional narcissist and he would have had captured my attention more. Dutton lumps the terms “personality traits” and “behavioral traits” together, when in fact they have a cause-effect relationship. Yes, there are positive and negative aspects to the descriptors that have been chosen to define psychopathy, so as there are with many other adjectives that describe controversial topics. However, it is the study of behaviors of those who exhibit those personality traits that really define the subject. For instance: A psychopath may have the following personality traits:Charming, tough-minded, impulsive, risk taking, courageous and socially manipulativeWith these in mind, a psychopath has the following behavioral traits:Violent out bursts, lack of empathy, devoid of feeling, social outcastNow let’s say a successful politician, neurosurgeon, or CEO share the same personality traits:Charming, tough-minded, impulsive, risk taking, courageous and socially manipulativeThis does not mean they behave in the same manner. They may have behavior traits such as:Financial risk taking, enhanced empathy to understand society and climb to the top ranks, great regard for how they are viewed by the publicI would not say that a clinically focused psychopath would run for senate because he is antisocial and does not care for the well-being of others or making money. Just like I would not say that a determined politician would rape and murder repeatedly without remorse because he is a family man with a conscience. By analyzing behavior, this makes Dutton’s arguments extremely unlikely and very unconvincing. I do not believe that 10-13% of the population is psychopathic, but I would completely agree that AT LEAST 10-13% of our population is narcissistic. If Dutton were to retitle his book: “Psychopaths & Narcissists: A Study of Positive and Negative Behaviors”, I would think it wouldn’t be as far off from an accurate concept. My other objections are branched from the primary idea that his overall theory doesn’t hold water. Namely, the majority of his research is dictated in a much skewed manner. I was given the feeling that he picked and chose little pieces from research studies that would prove his point, but if given all of the data and results of the same study, the research may not apply or may even discount his point entirely. As for his personal attestations, he would be convincing if his stories and recollections weren’t obviously fabricated or majorly enhanced beyond truth. Sure there may be a kernel of truth in his stories, but all seem a little bit too scripted to prove his point. I also found it interesting that Dutton touches on the concept of “Groupthink” and how it affects the behaviors of individuals in a close-knit group, whom might otherwise not exhibit those developed behaviors, but completely overlooks the idea that this concept quite possibly could have skewed a lot of his data collected from prisoners or hospitalized criminals. If people change the way they behave to match that of the group they are in, then antisocial behavior cannot be accurately studied. If he wanted to pool meaningful information, he would have to only study those in solitary confinement, or if out of prison, he’d have to study societal loners. Then, Dutton goes on to describe his Seven Deadly Wins, turning this book into a self-help book for success. His main point is that if we become “Positive Psychopaths” we will succeed in life. This is such a convoluted and ill-imagined idea. Psychopathy is not a practice. We cannot practice “Positive Psychopathy”. Psychopathy is a mental and social disorder that, without a doubt, is heinously destructive. Another point I noticed was that Dutton never really made the distinction of how psychopathy affected different genders. It’s unrealistic to assume that any research performed or any theory put forth in regards to mental stability would be uniform among the genders. It’s biologically imperative to study gender differences in understanding behavior patterns. I don’t believe it was even brought up once that Psychopathy could apply differently to women than men, which makes me wonder whether the pool he took his data from was gender-blind or whether it was all men. I do like his creative metaphoric thesis though, ofcourse not for its validity, but merely for its vividness. “Psychopathy is like sunlight. Overexposure can hasten one’s demise in grotesque, carcinogenic fashion. But regulated exposure at controlled and optimal levels can have a significant positive impact on well-being and quality of life.”Psychopathy is “personality with a tan”. It is unreal to believe that psychopathy can be practiced and exhibited within moderation to achieve maximum success. Psychopathy is a permanent disorder, not a temporary practice of valor. Dutton has a severe lack of understanding of what it means to lack emotional capacity or to lack a conscience, such as true psychopaths do. He states that in psychopathic behavior we can regulate emotions when decisions must be made under pressure and that we can control our consciences and be mentally tough or hard-headed. He is suggesting that a psychopath is better equipped to handle emergency scenarios. In reality, if placed in front of a burning building with children inside, a psychopath would not give a damn. If Dutton wanted to help people understand how to prevail in stressful situations he should have referenced: Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s research on the concept of flow, as proposed by Martha Stout, Ph.D. and author of The Myth of Sanity. Dutton’s book is neither straightforward, nor convincing. It dances around any conclusive facts by only giving the reader tiny pieces of research and misleads readers with personal claims and anecdotes. If anyone were to take this book and its meaning seriously, we may have some real issues in the future surrounding court proceedings, or more importantly, providing people with help who actually need it. Dutton’s misunderstanding of what it means to be a focused predator is monumental and puts a huge damper on all productive progress we’ve made in psychology to date.
Do You like book The Wisdom Of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, And Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success (2012)?
This was great; I actually learned a lot here. The most interesting sections were on how normal (non-psychopathic) people can benefit from learning to develop and cultivate some of the positive traits of high-functioning psychopaths: cool under extreme stress, a pathological need to take action and never just sit around, and a linear, obsessively goal-oriented approach to work and play. I know all of this sounds creepy, but that's probably only because most people assume all psychopaths are violent. Most aren't; a disproportionate are doctors, lawyers, bankers, athletes, pastors (yeah, pastors made the top ten list of professions for known psychopaths). It had never occurred to me that psychopaths had anything to teach us; this was a unique and interesting take on this subject, and it's pretty entertaining too. Enjoy.
—rania
So often serious subjects of scientific inquiry are watered down and given a pithy title to attract mass readership. Or, the pithy title masks the peat-moss swamp of esoteric "science-speak" and the non-academic reader is left with a wonderful door-stop.Neither is the case here. This book played like a well produced documentary in my head as I read it. Dutton does a masterful job of presenting hard science with occasional humor and with common language explanation. The significance of supporting studies are presented cogently and with an eye towards furthering the conversation, as it were.I learned a great deal with this book. And that learning was most pleasurable. Well done indeed.(as an added bonus, I recognized a few people in know in the profile of the average psychopath. You may be surprised)
—Manjunath
