It is a good idea, after posting a comment, to look at the comment to check that it says what you meant it to say, in the way you meant to say it. In this case, you need at the very least to reference the source, replace every carriage return in the source by two, replace the link with one that works, and see if the actual text is what you thought you pasted. (What appears above is truncated.) Most of the references are not referenced in the quoted text and should be cut.
At present, it reads as if you do not intend it to actually be read.
Those who do will find this gem of vacuity:
Some authors have speculated that some psychopathic traits, such as charisma and interpersonal dominance, may contribute to effective leadership and management, at least in the short term
Leaders have charisma and interpersonal dominance, psychopaths have charisma and interpersonal dominance, therefore… what? And listen to the melody these words are set to:
Some authors have speculated … some … may contribute … at least in the short term
Was I trying to prove the point that business leaders are definitely psychopaths, or the point that there is a lot of research on the topic?
You just dumped a popular-level article from a psychology magazine with a wall of references. Whatever you were trying to do, it fails to do either of those.
Have you noticed him handwavey the opposing arguments are?
Taking that as “how”, not “him”, I haven’t seen opposing arguments, just a pointing out that the argument for is not well sustained by the sources.
It is a good idea, after posting a comment, to look at the comment to check that it says what you meant it to say, in the way you meant to say it. In this case, you need at the very least to reference the source, replace every carriage return in the source by two, replace the link with one that works, and see if the actual text is what you thought you pasted. (What appears above is truncated.) Most of the references are not referenced in the quoted text and should be cut.
At present, it reads as if you do not intend it to actually be read.
Those who do will find this gem of vacuity:
Leaders have charisma and interpersonal dominance, psychopaths have charisma and interpersonal dominance, therefore… what? And listen to the melody these words are set to:
Not exactly a testable hypothesis, is it?
Was I trying to prove the point that business leaders are definitely psychopaths, or the point that there is a lot of research on the topic?
Have you noticed him handwavey the opposing arguments are?
You just dumped a popular-level article from a psychology magazine with a wall of references. Whatever you were trying to do, it fails to do either of those.
Taking that as “how”, not “him”, I haven’t seen opposing arguments, just a pointing out that the argument for is not well sustained by the sources.
ETA: This is indeed handwaving.