Society needs people willing to make taboo tradeoffs and take risks with no hesitation and occasionally hurt or manipulate people. Big companies need silver-tongued managers with more than a dash of cleverness and ruthlessness. Armies need cannon fodder. Storytellers don’t need, but would benefit from, some real examples of magnificent bastards and an audience that can empathize with such.
A world of Littlefingers would implode, but a world of Sansa Starks doesn’t get very far without a few Littlefingers to pull the strings. And it’s boring.
I’m not convinced that ruthlessness is a particularly good quality for managers of big companies to have from a societal perspective. Certainly there are ways in which it helps them compete against other companies, but not necessarily in ways that make them more wealth-productive.
I finished reading this book not too long ago, and it may be that it’s primed me to be too cynical with regards to the value of ruthlessness in business, but it’s certainly the case that there are a lot of ways to get ahead in the market by putting aside moral scruples that leave society as a whole worse off.
Society needs people willing to make taboo tradeoffs and take risks with no hesitation and occasionally hurt or manipulate people.
You don’t need psychopaths to get that. And of the people actually willing to make taboo tradeoffs, take risks and hurt or manipulate people it isn’t the psychopaths who are most likely to do so in a way that benefits ‘society’ as opposed to themselves at the expense of society.
Big companies need silver-tongued managers with more than a dash of cleverness and ruthlessness.
Society doesn’t need that, I don’t need that. Big companies are better for psychopaths than psychopaths are for big companies. And once again it isn’t ‘society’ that benefits and nor is it me that benefits so I reject your ‘we want people with a large amount of psychopathic traits’ claim.
Armies need cannon fodder.
Psychopaths are going to volunteer? Or are we rounding them up and sending them to the front lines? (I’m all for this.)
Storytellers don’t need, but would benefit from, some real examples of magnificent bastards and an audience that can empathize with such.
We need(/want) because we are in the habit of telling stories about . No thanks.
You don’t need psychopaths to get that. And of the people actually willing to make taboo tradeoffs, take risks and hurt or manipulate people it isn’t the psychopaths who are most likely to do so in a way that benefits ‘society’ as opposed to themselves at the expense of society.
Just for the sake of argument… you might need the psychopaths for there to be a sufficient amount of those useful genes in the pool that make a sufficient amount of normal people to be nasty in the altruistic way.
The kind that’s not clever/manipulative/rich can’t hold most jobs or fit into society, loves risks, is violent and impulsive, desperately wants to be cool, and may have a… troubled past. Any organization that doesn’t ask too many questions (think French Foreign Legion), gives them a gun and training, tells them they’re elites, and sends them off to kill people, is bound to draw a good many of them.
I reckon the French Foreign Legion offers a great prosocial container for psychopaths. Considering the only psychological entry requirements are an IQ test (irrelevant for psychopaths) and a personality test (very relevant, but easily gamed), I reckon they could get in asssuming they meet the psychopathy indifferent characteristics.
Considering that psychopaths may indeed be prosocial or ethically motivated. They might not be very happy with regular life, so socially legitimacy in the Legion would be a superb opportunity for them to advance prosocial causes, relative to say criminal violence.
No one much joins the Lions of Rojava cause they have shit recruiting, propoganda and social media management.
I reckon people fight for the sake of fighting, not for ideology
Ahmed, who fled his town near Raqqa in June, said some of the Arab fighters would try to mix with the local population, but the Europeans and other non-Arabs never did. He said that although the Islamic State militants claimed they were there to create a better life for Muslims, they seemed mainly focused on battles with other rebel groups and government forces.
“They were always very aggressive, and they seemed angry,” he said. “They are there to fight, not to govern.”
they’re frequently described as ″oversubscribed″ and
The FFL currently has 7,700 troops. By way of comparison the California National Guard has 18,000 troops. The FFL only takes 1 of 40 qualified applicants according to their own statistics. And the large majority of those they take have previous military experience in another country.
Perhaps that explaisn the popularity of foreign fighting with ISIS
I suppose the main reason it would be unethical to recommend this line of work even to psychopaths is the rate of injuries like back pain and such, even for those who don’t go to combat (training).
It would depend on the psychopath. Some psychopaths might not care for violence. Others may feel that it represents a kind of power to them. Considering that psychopaths may enjoy therapy because they get better at manipulating, but aren’t specifically manipulating for gain within that dyad (like malingerers), I imagine they might consider it training, should they ever become unhinged and do something criminal. Dynamic inconsistency is a hell of a drug.
You don’t need psychopaths to get that. And of the people actually willing to make taboo tradeoffs, take risks and hurt or manipulate people it isn’t the psychopaths who are most likely to do so in a way that benefits ‘society’ as opposed to themselves at the expense of society.
Just for the sake of argument (see “recombination” above), you might still need psychopaths for there to be a sufficient amount of favorable genes in the pool so that normal people can get nasty in the altruistic way.
Society needs people willing to make taboo tradeoffs and take risks with no hesitation and occasionally hurt or manipulate people. Big companies need silver-tongued managers with more than a dash of cleverness and ruthlessness. Armies need cannon fodder. Storytellers don’t need, but would benefit from, some real examples of magnificent bastards and an audience that can empathize with such.
A world of Littlefingers would implode, but a world of Sansa Starks doesn’t get very far without a few Littlefingers to pull the strings. And it’s boring.
I’m not convinced that ruthlessness is a particularly good quality for managers of big companies to have from a societal perspective. Certainly there are ways in which it helps them compete against other companies, but not necessarily in ways that make them more wealth-productive.
I finished reading this book not too long ago, and it may be that it’s primed me to be too cynical with regards to the value of ruthlessness in business, but it’s certainly the case that there are a lot of ways to get ahead in the market by putting aside moral scruples that leave society as a whole worse off.
You don’t need psychopaths to get that. And of the people actually willing to make taboo tradeoffs, take risks and hurt or manipulate people it isn’t the psychopaths who are most likely to do so in a way that benefits ‘society’ as opposed to themselves at the expense of society.
Society doesn’t need that, I don’t need that. Big companies are better for psychopaths than psychopaths are for big companies. And once again it isn’t ‘society’ that benefits and nor is it me that benefits so I reject your ‘we want people with a large amount of psychopathic traits’ claim.
Psychopaths are going to volunteer? Or are we rounding them up and sending them to the front lines? (I’m all for this.)
We need(/want) because we are in the habit of telling stories about . No thanks.
Just for the sake of argument… you might need the psychopaths for there to be a sufficient amount of those useful genes in the pool that make a sufficient amount of normal people to be nasty in the altruistic way.
The kind that’s not clever/manipulative/rich can’t hold most jobs or fit into society, loves risks, is violent and impulsive, desperately wants to be cool, and may have a… troubled past. Any organization that doesn’t ask too many questions (think French Foreign Legion), gives them a gun and training, tells them they’re elites, and sends them off to kill people, is bound to draw a good many of them.
I reckon the French Foreign Legion offers a great prosocial container for psychopaths. Considering the only psychological entry requirements are an IQ test (irrelevant for psychopaths) and a personality test (very relevant, but easily gamed), I reckon they could get in asssuming they meet the psychopathy indifferent characteristics.
Considering that psychopaths may indeed be prosocial or ethically motivated. They might not be very happy with regular life, so socially legitimacy in the Legion would be a superb opportunity for them to advance prosocial causes, relative to say criminal violence.
No one much joins the Lions of Rojava cause they have shit recruiting, propoganda and social media management.
I reckon people fight for the sake of fighting, not for ideology
they’re frequently described as ″oversubscribed″ and
Perhaps that explaisn the popularity of foreign fighting with ISIS
I suppose the main reason it would be unethical to recommend this line of work even to psychopaths is the rate of injuries like back pain and such, even for those who don’t go to combat (training).
Does that happen? I mean, there are psychopaths who decide to ignore the tendency and act morally, but would shooting some dudes still be fun then?
It would depend on the psychopath. Some psychopaths might not care for violence. Others may feel that it represents a kind of power to them. Considering that psychopaths may enjoy therapy because they get better at manipulating, but aren’t specifically manipulating for gain within that dyad (like malingerers), I imagine they might consider it training, should they ever become unhinged and do something criminal. Dynamic inconsistency is a hell of a drug.
Just for the sake of argument (see “recombination” above), you might still need psychopaths for there to be a sufficient amount of favorable genes in the pool so that normal people can get nasty in the altruistic way.