Image credit:
starline on Freepik
Today, I’ll return to the foundations of political
philosophy. The subject, on this occasion, is psychopathy. What is it? And why
does it seem so prevalent among politicians, and those that have or seek
political power? (This is a précis of work I did between 2016 and 2019).
The meme that politicians are psychopaths
There’s been a meme going around, for years now, that
politicians are psychopaths. This meme was first sowed in 2003 by
neurophysiologist Paul Broks, who suggested, based on conduct leading up to the
Iraq war, that Tony Blair was a “plausible psychopath.”
The meme was spread widely in 2012 via an article by James
Silver in the Atlantic Magazine. It is still around today in the blogosphere,
and every so often I catch new echoes of it.
Psychopaths and sociopaths
The word “psychopath,” dating from 1885, means: “a mentally
ill or unstable person; especially a person affected with anti-social
personality disorder.”
Some use an alternative term, “sociopath.” The distinction
between psychopath and sociopath doesn’t seem entirely clear. But broadly,
sociopaths suffer from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). For example,
they tend to be reckless, impatient and untrustworthy. Whereas psychopaths show
further, and more severe, symptoms. Including: lack of empathy with others,
dishonesty, manipulativeness and lack of remorse.
Robert D. Hare
In the field of psychopathy studies, a central figure is
Robert D. Hare. He is a Canadian psychologist, now in his 90s, specializing in
the psychology of criminal offenders. Around 1980, he developed his Psychopathy
Check List (PCL). At the time, there was no general agreement on what a
psychopath was, or how to identify one. Hare set out to create a measuring tool
for psychopathy, so psychologists could be sure they were talking about the
same things.
Since then, his check list has evolved into several
different forms. The one, with which I’m concerned today, is the Screening
Version (PCL:SV). This was developed in the 1990s, for use in psychiatric
evaluations and personnel selection.
The prevalence of psychopathy
It’s generally reckoned that about 20% of prison inmates are
psychopaths. And that psychopaths are responsible for over 50% of violent
crimes. So, it’s clear that psychopaths cause real problems for those around
them.
They can cause a lot of trouble at work, too. Many of you
will have known the types that behave with cruelty towards those they work
with, while sucking up to the big bosses. And if you’re unlucky enough to get
one of them as your manager, you’re in trouble.
Hare has estimated that about 1% of the population are
psychopaths. Other researchers think his number is high; 0.5% might be more
supportable. But there seems to be a substantially higher proportion of
psychopaths among business executives and CEOs. A figure of 4% has been
suggested for this. Hare himself has said: “Not all psychopaths are in prison –
some are in the boardroom.”
Hare’s check list
Robert Hare’s check list, in both the full and screening
versions, consists of three elements:
1. A
list of items to be assessed. In the screening version, there are 12 such
items.
2. A
scoring system; the higher the score, the greater the level of psychopathy.
3. A
cut-off score, at or beyond which an individual is to be regarded as
psychopathic.
For the screening version, there are two different cut-off
scores. The lower represents a “potential psychopath,” while the higher is
simply referred to with the word psychopath.
Two Factors
There’s some dispute about Hare’s division of the list of
items to be assessed into Factors, representing different aspects of
psychopathy. The original check list had two Factors, each of six items. There
have been developments since, by Hare himself and others. For my purposes
today, however, I find Hare’s original two-factor approach good enough. So,
I’ll stick with it.
Factor 1
Here are the six items in Factor 1 of the screening version
of the test. As a whole, they refer to “selfish, callous and remorseless use of
others.” The personality disorder, which tends to lead to these behaviours, is
NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).
1.
Superficial. Glib; having a surface
charm.
2.
Grandiose. Arrogant; think they are
superior human beings to others.
3.
Deceitful. Lying, insincere, selfish and
manipulative, unscrupulous, dishonest.
4.
Lack of empathy. Lacking sensitivity
towards, or regard for, other people.
5.
Doesn’t accept responsibility. Denies
responsibility; seeks to evade accountability for actions.
6.
Lack of remorse. Cold and calculating
attitude to others, seeming to feel no guilt, lacking concern for the losses,
pain and suffering of victims.
Factor 2
Factor 2 refers to “chronically unstable and anti-social
lifestyle.” The personality disorder, which produces these behaviours, is called
ASPD (anti-social personality disorder).
1.
Impulsive. Foolhardy, rash,
unpredictable, erratic, reckless.
2.
Poor behaviour controls. Showing
irritability, annoyance or impatience.
3.
Lacks goals. Living a parasitic
lifestyle, or having no realistic, long-term goals.
4.
Irresponsible. Untrustworthy; repeatedly
failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments.
5.
Adolescent anti-social behaviour.
6.
Adult anti-social behaviour.
The scoring system and cut-off
To quote Hare: “Items … are rated on a 3-point scale (0 =
item doesn’t apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies).
The items are summed to yield total scores … that reflect the degree to which
an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath. A cut-off score … or
greater is used to diagnose psychopathy.”
In the screening version, the total scores lie in the range
0 to 24, and the cut-off score is 18. Anyone scoring 18 or more can be
considered a psychopath. The threshold for potential psychopath, however, is
much lower, only 13.
Of course, in a prison setting, or when screening someone
for a job such as a police officer, the assessments must be done objectively
and without bias. A mistaken positive diagnosis of psychopathy can bring
undeserved ruin to the victim’s career and life. Because of this, Hare mandates
that the test must only be carried out by suitably trained professionals.
Nonetheless, I think Hare’s test is of great value to
ordinary people. Not so much to evaluate specific individuals like Tony Blair –
though Paul Broks, I think, was along the right lines in his opinion. But more
to gain an understanding of the levels of psychopathy among different sectors
of the population. Among politicians, for example. Or among politically active
groups, such as socialists, religious or social conservatives, and green
activists.
Psychopathy in the general population
Next, I’ll look at the distribution of scores among the
general population, as reported in a 2008 paper by Neumann and Hare in the
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
They took, from the MacArthur US violence risk assessment
published in 2001, the PCL:SV scores from a group of 500 or so randomly
selected people, whom the study had tested in order to provide a comparison
group for the offenders tested in the main part of the study. These people came
from the same demographic and racial mix as the offenders.
The most remarkable result, for me, was the distribution of
test scores among the comparison group. I quote from the paper: “Over half of
the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two-thirds had a score of 2
or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur civil psychiatric study
as an indication of ‘potential psychopathy,’ was obtained by 1.2% of the total
sample.” This is an amazing result – and they add that this “is consistent with
the findings of other large community studies.”
Moreover, 36% of the people in that random sample scored
zero. They had no trace of any psychopathic tendencies at all. This is
extremely reassuring news for those who, like me, posit that humans are
naturally good, and psychopaths are aberrations.
Mr Politico
Now, I’ll create a cardboard cut-out of a typical
politician. I’ll try to give him a good mix of the characteristics that
politicians tend to have. I dub my candidate Mr Politico. Let’s see how well he
does on the test, shall we?
Factor 1
Superficial? Glib? Having a surface charm? Check. Mr
Politico goes out of his way to be smooth, slick and charming. And he is hardly
ever at a loss for words; quite the opposite, in fact. Score: generous 1, harsh
2.
Grandiose? Arrogant? Thinks he is a superior human being to
others? Check. Mr Politico wants power. And the more power he gets, the more it
reinforces his conviction that he’s a superior being to those he rules over.
Score: generous 1, harsh 2.
Deceitful? Lying? Insincere? Selfish and manipulative?
Unscrupulous? Dishonest? Don’t make me laugh! Lying, exaggerating, hyping,
denying or obfuscating the truth; these are Mr Politico’s stocks in trade. He
doesn’t have any interest in the truth at all, if it conflicts with his
policies or prejudices. Indeed, he may even deny that truth exists at all.
He seems to have little or no sense of right and wrong; and most
of all, where his own selfish gain is involved. He often behaves as a
hypocrite, and fails to practice what he preaches others ought to do. Mr
Politico ticks every one of the boxes under the Deceitful heading. Score: 2.
Lack of empathy? Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for,
other people? Check. Empathy is “being sensitive to… the feelings, thoughts and
experience of another.” And, vitally important, empathy is feeling for other individuals.
Yet Mr Politico doesn’t care a damn about people as individuals, except his
cronies and perhaps his family. If we look hard at his behaviour, we don’t see
much evidence of empathy or fellow feeling towards us ordinary human beings;
even towards those he is supposed to represent.
Mr Politico belongs to a mainstream political party. That
is, a gang with an ideology and agendas it wants to impose on people. And he
usually toes the party line. He supports the “Great Causes” and policies pushed
by his masters – like “sustainable development,” “clean air,” or a maudlin
over-concern for “safety” – ahead of the needs, desires, rights and freedoms of
us human beings. The politics of the day, and his own privileged position in
it, are all that matter to Mr Politico. Score: 2.
Doesn’t accept responsibility? Seeks to evade accountability
for actions? Check. He may try to cover up his wrongdoings, or point the finger
of blame at someone else, or lie in an attempt to rationalize his actions, or
bluster to try to convince people that he was right all along. Lack of
accountability is built into the system which affords him power, the political
state. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.
Lack of remorse? Cold and calculating attitude to others?
Seeming to feel no guilt? Lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of
victims? Check. Just about every law that politicians make today is seeking to
inconvenience us, to make us poorer, to violate our human rights and freedoms,
or all three. And when was the last time a politician ever said “sorry?” Don’t
make me laugh. Score: 2.
Factor 2
Impulsive? Foolhardy? Rash? Unpredictable? Erratic?
Reckless? Maybe Mr Politico isn’t all these things all of the time; but they’re
there, all right. He may support wars just because his masters say so. Or he
may support highly risky “solutions” to green non-problems, like
geo-engineering schemes, or replacing reliable energy sources by intermittent
ones. Score: 1.
Poor behaviour controls? Irritable? Annoyed? Impatient?
Again, Mr Politico isn’t all these things at once. But we far too often hear
politicians demanding ACTION! NOW! on the trumped-up scare du jour.
Score: 1.
Lives a parasitic lifestyle? Has no realistic, long-term
goals? Well, I’ll admit, Mr Politico is innocent on that last one. He does have
goals – to make himself popular, rich and famous, while screwing everyone
except his cronies. But most professional politicians are parasites; because
they live off taxation, yet do more harm than good to the people who pay
through the nose for their “services.” Score: 1.
Irresponsible? Untrustworthy? Repeatedly failing to fulfil
or honour obligations or commitments? Check. “Read my lips, no new taxes.” “The
government will abide by the result of the [Brexit] referendum.” Politicians –
and Mr Politico is no exception – can’t be trusted further than you can throw
them. And that, unfortunately, isn’t far enough. Score: 2.
As to the last two, adolescent and adult anti-social
behaviour, Mr Politico is probably not guilty. (But if he was, the story would
have been suppressed, of course.)
Assessing Mr Politico
Mr Politico has scored 9 to 12 on Factor 1, and 5 on Factor
2. His score on Factor 1 shows him to be very likely a narcissistic
personality. His score on Factor 2 shows that he may be an anti-social
personality, too. His combined score is between 14 and 17. Mr Politico is a
potential psychopath, maybe even verging on a full psychopath.
Mr Politico is, at best, in the worst 1.2% of the
population. He is, quite clearly, not the kind of individual any decent human
being would want to associate with. Let alone vote for! In a properly ordered
community of human beings worth the name, he would be ostracized or imprisoned.
He would never get even a sniff of power.
Assessing politicians in general
Now, Mr Politico is a cardboard cut-out of a politician. So,
it would be rash to try to deduce, from the above, that every politician is a
potential psychopath. In reality, most politicians show some of these
psychopathic traits to some degree. Some possess more of them, others less. It
is only when the traits are aggregated together that the diagnosis of
psychopathy becomes sound.
However, in a supposedly democratic system, we should be
able to expect – should we not? – that those to be allowed into positions of
power should be qualified to represent the people. Thus, each must be at least
as good a person – in this context, that means must score no higher on the
PCL:SV test – than the people they are supposed to represent. And since half of
the general population score 0 or 1 on the test, we can reasonably expect that
those to be allowed power should score 0 or 1 on the test too.
But consider that, if an individual has even one of these
psychopathic traits at the level of “item definitely applies,” that puts them
over the median score, so ought to disqualify them from power. Yet many of
today’s politicians seem to have two or more of these traits: glibness, arrogance, deceit or dishonesty,
lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility, lack of remorse,
recklessness, impatience, untrustworthiness. It would seem that political
power, and the desire for it, breed narcissism. And anti-social behaviour, too.
To follow up Robert Hare’s comment I gave you earlier. Not
all psychopaths are in prisons or in the boardroom – some are in parliament or on
local councils.
Assessing the wider political class
It isn’t just politicians that show these psychopathic
traits. Most political activists, and many in government positions, have them
too.
Activists or “spokespeople,” glibly trying to sell their
policy wares. Behind the scenes policy drivers, such as self-appointed
aristocrats in organizations like the UN, and pressure groups striving to push
policies in a particular direction. “Celebrities” and many of the rich.
Quangocrats. Businessmen that mistreat their people, or go to government to get
rules made to hobble their competitors. Virtually all the main stream media, as
well as politicized academics and “scientists.” Bureaucrats and jobsworths,
that seem to enjoy making life difficult for people. Far too many of these have
one or more of the traits in Hare’s test.
Psychopaths and power
It’s easy to see why psychopaths are drawn to political
power. It enables them to live out their grandiose delusions of superiority
over others. The 16th century, failed system of political states and
“sovereignty” is explicitly set up to enable them to do bad things to us! And
it allows them, more often than not, to get away with their crimes.
Furthermore, “democratic” elections select for glibness and
persuasiveness, and thus in favour of psychopaths. And once a political party
is seeded with enough psychopaths or potential psychopaths, if an honest person
does get elected, they must kow-tow to their party’s policies, or risk their
careers. That, I think, is why the few honest people, who do enter politics,
almost always rapidly become either corrupted or side-lined. Or, perhaps, leave
their party.
It gets worse. Once a critical level of psychopathic
tendency is reached among those in charge of a political system, the entire
system becomes corrupt. The political institutions, as a whole, go insane. And
that’s where we are today.
To sum up
Psychopaths want power. Current political systems, including
democracy, tend to favour psychopaths over honest people for positions of
power. While this tendency acts quite slowly, over time it has relentlessly
increased the incidence of psychopathic traits among politicians, and in government
as a whole. So, today far too many of those with political power and influence are
arrogant, deceitful, selfish, callous and remorseless in their treatment of
others. Not to mention impatient, reckless and untrustworthy. And once a
critical level is reached, political institutions go mad.
The same psychopathic tendencies also exist among the wider
political class, that hang on to the coat-tails of power. Political activists,
celebrities, big business, the rich, the media, academe, bureaucracy. All are
corrupted by at least some degree of psychopathy. As a result, today we’re in
the grips of a giant, collective, psychopathic insanity.
We are in need of a big dose of sanity. Can Reform UK
provide that?
No comments:
Post a Comment