Are most CEO´s psychopaths, and what does this say about our society?

[Deleted]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/masters...-world/5383706
http://time.com/32647/which-professi...hs-the-fewest/

Lot´s of interesting studies have been done regarding this topic. TLDR:

CEO´s and government officials take gutwrenching decisions which impact the life of thousands. IE: fireing 1000 people, ruining their lifes and bankrupting them, while raising their own pay and bonus. No sane person could do this without getting into conflict with their morals and their concious. Yet a lot of CEO´s dont seem te have a problem with this. Extreme narcasism, feelings of grandeur and entitlement are their ´thing´. They can get far in life fast due to natural obsessive behaviour and manipulation skills.

So what does this say about our society?

[Deleted]

I think the term "psychopath" has been way too watered down.

[Graeham]

I'm sure there's exceptions but it does seem to be the case that a lot of people in the higher aspects of society lack much in the way of empathy. Generally speaking a lot of people at the top of a system get where they are through systematically screwing over whoever is below them before, during and after their rise to the top. That they're given such a ridiculous high salary simply adds wealth inequality to the already bleak and flawed system.

[prwraith]

I think the term "psychopath" has been way too watered down.

I'd agree with that sentiment. Most ceo's are surely mad but psycopath is a huge stretch.

[Deleted]

No, most ceos arn't psychopaths / sociopaths and to pretend that they are lets them off the hook for the bad things some of them do.

That said, don't give such people too much grief untill you've been in similar situations. Not every fired employee is because the company can't afford to support them. Often it can be because somethign about how the company is run has changed and those people are no longer needed. Keeping people on when they don't have a job to do is pointless.

Also can I point out that if an employer fires an employee with little notice, the employer is the DEVIL and I'm TAKING YOU TO TRIBUNAL YOU GREEDY BASTARD BLAH BLAH BLAH

When an employee leaves the employer with no notice it's a good thing and "congratulations you are taking a step forward in your career!" and "Don't stay with your current employer out of guilt or duty, you don't owe them anything!"

Theres a massive double standard in employer / employee relationships and some of that comes from the law and some of it comes from employees being entitled little shitbags but don't make sweeping generalisations about "CEO's" or whatever else unless you've walked a mile in their shoes.

[Deleted]

Pshychopat =/= mass murderer/no emotions/no empathy

Psychopat = a person who can do amoral deeds without feeling remorse

A lot of pshychopats are surgeons, firemen, ambulance drivers, jet pilots and CEO's.

But I guess people like to see CEO's as pshychopats that can only supress their murderous/torturous ways by making millions of dollars.

TLDR, there are many kinds of pshychopats and probably quite a few of them you call uncle/mom/friend/.. this does not mean that they are trying to resist the urge to stab you in the eye when they speak with you, it means that they can do things you can't because they can flip of there emotions when the situation requires them to do so (you wouldn't want a surgeon/firemen to be in doubt when he's trying to save your life).

And yes, my claims are based of a study.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...m-psychopaths/

To add to that, I'm not fond of CEO's making 1000x the wage of there employees.

[Sunseeker]

I don't think they're sociopaths by nature in the same sense that we use the term medically. However, money and power have been shown to desensitize people to other humans, basically shielding them from the natural hardships of life, and I think that is what leads to the perception of the very wealthy as "psychopaths".

[Deleted]

To add to that, I'm not fond of CEO's making 1000x the wage of there employees.

I'm not a fan of employees taking 1000x less of the risk involved in building a business than their CEOS but life goes on

[Sunseeker]

I'm not a fan of employees taking 1000x less of the risk involved in building a business than their CEOS but life goes on

When a business goes under, pray tell do you think suffers the most? The wealthy businessman who even though his business failed retains numerous assets to pay off debts and also leave him with a nice set of money left over? Or the working-class worker who depends on his monthly paycheck to stay out of the poor house?

The cost of failed businesses is almost entirely on the shoulders of the worker. Outside of mom-and-pop shops, business owners rarely end up at the unemployment line.

[Deleted]

Er no, but I do think they have to be extremely diplomatic especially if resources are extra tight and some employees have to receive 'bad news' in a little chat.

[Zathrendar]

I don't know. Are most soldiers psychopaths, and what does it say about our society that we venerate these people? Or grant positions of power to politicians, who are much likelier than any other profession to attract psychopaths?

And to the clueless here, the CEO is not usually the owner of the firm. They are a senior manager. They may own shares in the firm, however the actual owners are the shareholders.

[Deleted]

I'm not a fan of employees taking 1000x less of the risk involved in building a business than their CEOS but life goes on

Where is the 1000x risk if the worst that could happen is a golden parachute?

Also good job on ignoring the rest of my post and derailing the thread discussion into the unavoidable point of disagreement: CEO's, rich douchebags that earn to much or hardworking something something American dream?

[Zathrendar]

When a business goes under, pray tell do you think suffers the most? The wealthy businessman who even though his business failed retains numerous assets to pay off debts and also leave him with a nice set of money left over? Or the working-class worker who depends on his monthly paycheck to stay out of the poor house?

The former. If the worker wants to shoulder the full perks of owning a business, they can also assume the full risks. Some do. If you want to be a whiny little shit that wants to be told what to do (and really, what decent ideas do many "workers" have for running a company?), only works 9 - 5 and assumes no other real responsibilities, stop expecting to be owed anything more than you actually are.

[Sunseeker]

The former. If the worker wants to shoulder the full perks of owning a business, they can also assume the full risks. Some do. If you want to be a whiny little shit that is told what to do, only works 9 - 5 and assumes no other real responsibilities, stop expecting to be owed anything more than you actually are.

I question how many businesses you've seen go under.

[Deleted]

The former. If the worker wants to shoulder the full perks of owning a business, they can also assume the full risks. Some do. If you want to be a whiny little shit that wants to be told what to do (and really, what decent ideas do many "workers" have for running a company?), only works 9 - 5 and assumes no other real responsibilities, stop expecting to be owed anything more than you actually are.

So you assume that the people who do not have stocks or a leading role in the compagny they work for are (quote) 'whiny little shit that wants to be told what to do'?

You sir, are a incompetent leader that I wouldn't even trust to be squad leader in Battlefield.

[AeneasBK]

I'm not a fan of employees taking 1000x less of the risk involved in building a business than their CEOS but life goes on

Yeah, confused by this logic. The idea that CEOs in some way suffer in a real sense from failed business is, I think, just an idea put about so people are less angry at the discrepencies. As people have pointed out, after not very long, there is very little real risk. You will not become "poor" because one business venture fails.

Sure they "suffer" in a "won't make as many tens of millions of dollars" but at that point of excess, is it really "suffering"

[Revi]

No they're not. There's a higher percentage among CEO's compared to the general population, but it's still far from a majority.

Anyways, it makes sense. Running a successful business is about monetary gain, and sentiment is detrimental to that. You need to be able to fire people without a second thought, you need to take major risks and you need to be confident about your decisions. Not having empathy is an obvious strength assuming you have all the other skills of a CEO.

Doesn't say much really, this is just how capitalism works..

I disagree that the term has been watered down though, we've just begun to realize that psychopaths aren't some rare unicorns - and considering this CEO "fact" originally comes from the guy who invented the term in the first place, saying he has watered down his own term just doesn't make sense. It's just become more understood that you can be a psychopath and still a functioning member of society.

I see psychopathy as just another useful deviation among humans to be honest. A LOT of our progress have been made by people who suffer from various conditions that distinguish them from the rest, as a species those deviations have proven to be incredibly useful. Is psychopathy something to admire? I don't think so, but it's a benefit in the grand scheme of things assuming you value the way we've progressed.

[Jackmoves]

No they aint.

And when they take those tough decisions they might be fucking an employee over, thats true but at the same time they are likely increasing the profit margin for the company which hey... might lead to higher yields for retirement funds, share owners etc... and making the company profitable is their job. The company and it's share owners isn't a private social worker, being employeed by them isn't a right you can demand.

You are just another person who got it all wrong.

[Deleted]

When a business goes under, pray tell do you think suffers the most? The wealthy businessman who even though his business failed retains numerous assets to pay off debts and also leave him with a nice set of money left over? Or the working-class worker who depends on his monthly paycheck to stay out of the poor house?

The cost of failed businesses is almost entirely on the shoulders of the worker. Outside of mom-and-pop shops, business owners rarely end up at the unemployment line.

Yeah, confused by this logic. The idea that CEOs in some way suffer in a real sense from failed business is, I think, just an idea put about so people are less angry at the discrepencies. As people have pointed out, after not very long, there is very little real risk. You will not become "poor" because one business venture fails.

Sure they "suffer" in a "won't make as many tens of millions of dollars" but at that point of excess, is it really "suffering"

If a business fails, the employees aren't accountable for it, they just go find another job. The owner more than likely has their house as collateral for finance taken out to support the business etc. When they started that business, they started it from nothing slaved their fucking bollocks off probably without taking a paycheque for the first year or so and yet still taking the risk of it failing out themselves, and more than likely working another job at the same time to pay the bills. They are the ones who's lives get torn to bits to pay off creditors. Not to mention to keep that business going they are the ones who have to deal with all the legal risks and this and that, a lot of which come back on them personally if it all goes under. Yes, when you get to super ultra mega big international corporation, a lot of this risk goes away, but there are very few of these companies compared to average sized companies, and even the giant ones started in someone's garage somewhere. Someone took that risk to begin with for the first year/10years/20years or however long it takes.

[Deleted]

Even if they were psychopaths, it doesn't say anything about our society. Why? How do you think they ended up as CEOs?