[scott_w]

While I can't cite any studies, Richard Dawkins presents some of the theory in The Selfish Gene.

While total "nice guys" tend to finish last in a population of "bad guys", a localised population of "fool me once guys" can, given time, push out the "bad guys", and become a dominant population.

This works when the benefits of working together outweigh the benefits of screwing over the other guy. While a population of bad guys is busy screwing each other over, the fool me once guys are busy working well together, unless they get screwed over, in which case they can refuse to do business again. An outcome that makes it harder for bad guys to keep screwing people over.

[forensic]

So much faith.

Which evolutionary strategy succeeds is entirely dependent on the environment. Capitalism and the modern metropolis is the perfect environment for sociopaths to thrive, and research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West.

The simple fact of the matter is that when a sociopath is discovered, the discoverer will avoid the sociopath but WILL NOT WARN OTHERS due to fear of retaliation.

Fear keeps the sheep in check, and allows sociopaths to move from one sucker to the next. Each sociopath may only get to exploit a given mark (Mark1) two, three, or five times, but then that sociopath moves on to the next mark, and a new sociopath takes advantage of Mark1.

In this way sociopaths in our anonymous, private society run amok and their evolutionary strategy is highly successful. Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth - ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit is highly lucrative in our private culture that has no accountability.

Dr. Martha Stout in The Sociopath Next Door gives the example of a sociopath who lied and blackmailed her way into a position as a clinical psychologist in a mental hospital despite having no qualifications.

Colleagues and patients became aware of the sociopath on multiple occasions, but when they would complain to the administration they hit a stonewall because the forward-looking sociopath had sexually blackmailed key individuals.

The sociopath worked as a psychologist for 14 years before a wealthy and connected patient was exploited and harmed by her, upon which time the wealthy patient's father threatened the hospital with a public lawsuit if they did not pay him.

The hospital administration paid a settlement to the wealthy client and fired the sociopath, but did not report the sociopath to ANYONE, including its own staff. The sociopath then simply went and worked at another hospital.

Over and over again in our society the pattern of the sociopath is that when they are discovered they simply move on to the next sucker.

This did not happen in traditional cultures. Dr. Martha Stout explains how in Inuit culture sociopaths would be ritualistically murdered by a group of men in the tribe. In 19th century America, if a sociopath scammed some people in a town, those people would capture and lynch the sociopath even if they did not engage in strictly illegal behaviour.

This selection pressure prevented the proliferation of sociopaths, but now our society rewards sociopaths and has no protective mechanisms. More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness.

We live in the age of the sociopath. Bad people are not punished but rather rewarded at every turn. A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths, and they got to where they are because the good people they fucked over along the way either did not speak up or were ignored and ridiculed when they did.

[tfb]

The simple fact of the matter is that when a sociopath is discovered, the discoverer will avoid the sociopath but WILL NOT WARN OTHERS due to fear of retaliation.

This is false.

Nothing bothers me more than people making statements as if they are fact, especially with no evidence whatsoever.

I am living evidence of the opposite of your statement.

I played in a band professionally for a few years, and got to learn a few sociopaths very well: my ex-bandmates, of course, some worse than others. There came a point where I could not idly stand by while they manipulated and harmed unknowing people day after day. Not all of it was terrible but it really adds up after a while.

So I decided to leave the band, and the night before the last show on a tour, I let everyone in the band know exactly what I thought of them; and after I left, I told all of their friends and some fans who wanted to know why I left what they had been doing to people.

There was no fear of retaliation. And to this day, a year and a half later, no attempt at retaliation has been made.

I'm not aggressive, but I am dominant. Aggressiveness, sociopathy, and dominance do not go hand in hand.

My old band has accomplished nothing since I left, and I bet they've learned a little something from the experience. We may not be able to lynch sociopaths anymore, but we can sure teach them lessons if we use our brains and refuse to put up with it. Calling them out on any and every occasion is probably the best thing one can do.

[billpatrianakos]

I don't doubt that was the case for you but that's one personal experience. When it comes to a subject like sociopaths we're dealing with people and there are no absolutes when it comes to behavior so while in your case it might be false the majority of cases may not be. The OP is taking a lot of flack for not citing a source but I saw he cited a book at the very beginning, said he had done extensive research, and to me it was pretty clear that his entire comment was based on that source mentioned in the first few sentences. I think we should lay off. I really don't think he's just coming in here to make stuff up. We are just discussing things, it's not a peer review. I give him the benefit of the doubt here.

[ryanwaggoner]

Speaking of faith, I didn't see a single source or statistic to back up any of the claims you've made here.

I'd settle for a source for this, actually:

A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths

Particularly the "diagnosed" part.

[ryanmolden]

There is talk of this in Hare's book called Snakes in suits[1]. He alludes to actual research iirc, the basic gist says the percentage of diagnosable psycopathy in populations like prisons and upper echelons of corporations are significantly higher than in the general population and specifically higher than one would expect when controlling for other possible explanations.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0060837721

[forensic]

Not a single source? Can you read? I cited an extensively researched book by an academic. I mentioned Dr. Martha Stout on multiple occasions. RTFA you tool.

[ryanwaggoner]

RTFA you tool.

Ah, name-calling. Excellent rhetorical technique.

You cited a source for a long anecdote (which is evidence of pretty much nothing), but no sources or even actual numbers for claims like:

research on sociopathy shows it is increasing in the West

Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth

More often than not, sociopaths use their lack of conscience as a business advantage and rise quickly in organizations through charm, blackmail, politics, and ruthlessness

A huge proportion of corporate and government leaders are diagnosed sociopaths

I'm ignoring a lot of other claims that are just pure opinion and speculation, but these four should be able to be backed up by actual data. Unless they're pure bullshit. Which I'll assume they are unless you can cite some kind of source.

[forensic]

I read a book and a bunch of research on sociopaths and then to serve the HN community I spent my own free time to do a write up.

I cite an extensively researched high quality source, which actually addresses and supports every single statement I made.

And then you have the arrogance to tell me I didn't cite a single source?

Not only did I cite a source, I wrote a fucking essay based on real research, based on established high quality experts. Where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where is your support?

This is a discussion forum. Do you go around harassing everyone who says anything for sources? 99% of posts do not cite sources on Hacker News.

BUT I DID!

I'm just about done with this anti-intellectual community because of people like you. Inserting [citation needed] after every post you disagree does not contribute to the discussion. I'm a highly educated expert on this subject with exemplary sources that are entirely based on hard science and little know-nothing blogger peons like you follow me around saying [citation needed] EVEN WHEN I CITE GREAT SOURCES.

Time to check out of HN.

[ryanwaggoner]

I cite an extensively researched high quality source, which actually addresses and supports every single statement I made.

There's nothing abut your essay to indicate that the book you mentioned was a source for anything other than the anecdote about the sociopathic clinical psychologist, and the Inuit culture. Is that book the source of every claim you made? That's not even remotely clear to me from reading your post. Most of your claims are all extremely vague and you don't connect them to the book at all, so they sound like you just spouting your opinions.

Where is your evidence? Where is your research? Where is your support?

I don't need any evidence, research, or support, because I didn't make any claims. You made some extraordinary claims, so you need to provide the support.

I'm a highly educated expert on this subject

If you're a "highly educated expert on this subject", I'd expect a little more actual data. For example, you could say something like "37% of those who worked their way to wealth are sociopaths" instead of "Sociopaths are found in large proportions among those who worked their way to wealth". If you're an expert you should probably at least roughly know that number, and without out, I don't know what "large proportion" means. Does that mean 40%? Or does it mean 1% and that's a large proportion because that's 20x the rate that sociopaths are found in society at large?

exemplary sources that are entirely based on hard science

Sorry, but none of this is based on "hard science", because psychology isn't a hard science. There's not even an accepted definition and difference for sociopath vs. psychopath and neither is a diagnosis in the DSM, which is part of why your post was confusing. Though some psychologists use the term differently, sociopaths are generally considered to be more fringe and abnormal, whereas psychopaths are more likely to appear charming and successful on the outside. Which seems like it would apply to most of your claims far more than the term sociopath. But perhaps Ms. Stout uses the term interchangeably.

...I'm just about done with this anti-intellectual community...

...little know-nothing blogger peons like you...

You might find a more receptive audience in this community for your extraordinary and unsupported claims if you took the time to give actual statistics, cited your sources, and refrained from name-calling. Just a thought.

[calibraxis]

That's a pity; it was an interesting writeup of a book I haven't read. And Hare's claim about the high number of corporate sociopaths has been mentioned here before.

(Of course, given the number of people here with 'capitalist' in their job title — venture capitalist — when you mention something unflattering about capitalism, you'll generally get demands to provide evidence beyond what's normal for this site. ;)

In a market economy, one's often punished for being concerned about the costs to others (so-called "externalities"), so even normal people are rewarded for acting sociopathically...