My 6 year old daughter would not allow our Church youth director near her, nor would she look at him or talk to him, though he kept trying, laughing and teasing her every day. I told her it was okay to not like him if she didn't want to, that she didn't have to talk to him or let him touch her, and to tell me if he bothered her. I did not laugh at his antics, instead giving him blank stares. Our church blew apart up in a big sex scandal soon after that, and he was one of the ones accused of abuse. My daughter was saved from because I listened to her and encouraged her trust her instincts.
The most difficult aspect of reining in the psychopaths and other dark personality predators and parasites that walk among us, is in teaching people to see beyond the masks. The late Andrew Vachss stated it so very simply as "behavior is truth."
And behavior, or perhaps it's better phrased as "behavioral outcomes" tell us what we need to know, insofar as structuring our pattern recognition is concerned.
I thought the article very insightful, in the way it emphasizes the sort of "shock and awe" stemming from the cognitive dissonance that people experience when first they get a glimpse at what lies behind "the mask."
That experience, of catching a glimpse "behind the curtain," is particularly meaningful because it is rarely something of exclusively intellectual interest. That personal involvement in the situation where the revelation occurs, emphasizes for the onlooker their vulnerability to the predator. In other words, there is a deeply emotional aspect, one that induces a rising, visceral horror at what has been revealed. Betrayal is conceptually central in evaluating the effect.
Yes, I feel a deep gratitude at this moment, gratitude for my good fortune to have read this truly excellent effort being made to help people to recognize the monsters that walk among us.
> personal involvement in the situation where the revelation occurs, emphasizes for the onlooker their vulnerability to the predator.
The majority of the professionals surveyed who'd seen these predators "mask off" reported being afraid for their safety. The predators malevolence and vindictiveness strikes fear into the hearts of those who see. (Harrison mentioned this in an earlier article in the series.)
"The majority of the professionals surveyed who'd seen these predators "mask off" reported being afraid for their safety. The predators malevolence and vindictiveness strikes fear into the hearts of those who see."
Yes, Jerome, and a very good point indeed. The professionals who deal with the extreme example of criminally-indicted predators fear for their personal safety, and that's something that scales "downward," as well.
The murderers are only the publicly visible "tip of the iceberg," there are millions of other dark personality types walking among us, stopping short of physical violence. They threaten safety on a level more accurately described as "security." I've watched them lie, cheat and steal for decades in the workplace and create havoc in daily personal dynamics in homes and communities. I suspect that you might not disagree, because you've seen them too.
Most people have encountered them, but few recognize them for who and what they are. What's so laudable about Mr. Koehli's emerging series of essays (aside from being well-written and interesting,) is that it correlates the trait expression in a manner that assists pattern recognition in daily life.
I've long considered general lack of awareness about psychopathy at less-then-lethal levels to be a tremendously important societal problem, an urgent one.
When our "intuition" (subconscious pattern recognition, really) picks up on the behavior patterns in daily life, we can take measures to avoid these people once identified. It's impossible to avoid them in the workplace; they must be dealt with.
There are two challenges to dealing with the trait expressions in the workplace; their techniques and the simple fact that their workplace performance metrics mimic profitability for the organization. I say "mimic" because objectively and accurately observed from a fully-informed peer-level perspective, their actual performance is ordinary and unexceptional.
In reality, their performance metrics are a cost transfer. Their trait expression reduces the honestly-earned performance metrics of others. I have repeatedly witnessed the termination of employment of those the DTs have victimized. Eventually, the DT is usually expelled, but not before they have wrecked the careers of others.
From a management perspective, it takes a while to sort them out; approximately two to three years, on average, in today's environment. It takes about a year to recognize them, to differentiate their behavior patterns from ordinary greed and incompetence or ignorance. Expelling them from the workplace then takes between one and two years as the documentation is accumulated.
The only effective manner of restricting the damage they do, requires an approach foreign to benign and supportive management cultures; absolute and unwavering ruthlessness. I'll end by expressing it colloquially; corralling 'em introduces a level of awfulness that casts a shadow over the spirits of everyone involved.
"what to do when the predators are managing the joint? Leave?"
You've touched on the heart of the matter. The answer is "well, that depends."
It depends on the level of management that is expressing the trait(s,) and one's level of exposure to them. Viewed from inside infested organizations, there are hierarchies of exposure. Speaking for myself, I have no little regret over leaving one such situation. In retrospect after a few decades, I can see a number of ways that I might have altered the outcome by simply remaining and enduring.
Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, and there could have been no way of predicting that two of the three predators would die shortly after my departure, of natural causes (the misery of which were richly deserved,) and the third dismissed in disgrace. Of the three, only one might have passed the entirety of the tests in the DSM, the other two were opportunists expressing DT traits at a clearly subclinical level. Intellectually insolvent and morally bankrupt, those two, but not psychopaths.
Well, peering over one's shoulder is all well and good, but the trick is to learn from it. When I left, I also left a cadre of really wonderful people who had no option other than "duck and cover" for a few years. At the same time, my quiet departure was a grave disservice to the CEO. Almost exactly twenty years later, he accepted my apology for not going to him immediately, laying all the cards on the table and seeing the matter through.
To answer your question succinctly; if the trait expression is at the very apex of the hierarchy; yes, leave.
Often enough, however, the exorcism required, is of those in the middle levels of the hierarchy. I have watched strong and smart people outlast and outmaneuver the predators and parasites, though at no little cost to their health and spirit, to be sure.
Leave or stay, fight or retreat, it all leaves scars, regardless.
Upon further reflection, your question appears almost as a timely koan, inducing a sort of "gestalt," one centered around the purpose of such exposition. You would think it obvious,that the reason is to define and reify a sort of praxeology of exorcism, if you'll forgive the metaphor.
And there you go again, A, making sense of it all.
By leaving the situation I refer to above, I wound up in a business failure doomed by managerial cupidity and incompetence. In my urgency to avoid that very reenactment you so perspicaciously refer to , I chose unwisely, wasting nearly two years, and that was much to my disadvantage.
The decision to stay, I think, is weighted by one's investment, and I am not confining the term to remuneration in saying so.
The irony is that I had a goodly part of my answer in two writings; Emerson's essay on "Self Reliance" and Ringer's "Looking Out For Number One." Not to go all "woo" on you here, but it seems to me that God was "whacking me upside the head" repeatedly, attempting to get my attention and direct it toward things I'd already learned.
Add in Berne's transactional analysis and Stoddard's extension of Skinner's work on conditioned response, and my own myopia is revealed. This brings us full-circle to forgiveness. In this case, of oneself.
Been struggling in that direction myself, for many long years. The act of summoning the ruthlessness required when dealing with them can make it very troubling to "look in the mirror," and that summoning happens only after having repeatedly been on the receiving end of their predatory behaviors, year after traumatic year.
The only thing I can share with absolute confidence, is that forgiveness seems to be one of the keys, defined as "cessation of requiring retribution." We often have difficulty forgiving ourselves for what has happened, and it isn't obvious to us that this is an integral part of what makes the trauma so persistent.
I owned a business with a person I believe is a psychopath. He didn’t hurt me much. But his presence was dark. Very hard to put your finger on as he was very socially adept. At one point we sponsored a youth club. Some things began to go missing around our business. We knew we had a thief somewhere. The teen who was the president of the youth club was absolutely clean cut. Polite, nice…all the rest. My biz partner identified him as the thief. I said he was crazy. They found this kid had a lair in the forest with stolen goods from all over. I asked my partner how he knew. He said ‘I was that kid. I was selling drugs at school (pot), stealing, and no one had the faintest idea. I could see right through him.’ Any Mom would have been thrilled to have either of them dating their daughter.
Good example. Shows how difficult this subject can be. Generally speaking, though, we are looking for people who are doing more than being petty thieves.
Interesting article. I would like to point out how much easier it is for these predators to operate today when most people interact digitally. Predators can more easily manipulate their public perception, and other people never get a glimpse of who they really are.
John Wayne Gacey used to perform as a clown at children's parties. Richard Ramirez was a winning bachelor on the Dating Game. You will not know if you encounter a serial killer unless you're their next victim. They blend in that well🫤
Many people will go their whole lives without knowing that they’ve dealt with one of these monsters. But once you’ve unmasked one- you are like Neo in The Matrix-they start to stand out for you like code running down the walls. And then it all makes sense.
Ted wrote “truly outstanding series you’ve got going here” and I wholeheartedly agree, this makes for absolutely fascinating reading! Thank you so much for writing and sharing your thoughts on all you have learned and acquired through many hours of intensive reading and for then presenting it in such a clear and easy to understand straightforward manner, much appreciated!
With all of the who’s who named around the p diddy story alot of those people would have to fit into the above category and the proceeding article to this one dark pathological personality that you wrote about. I can’t help but notice just a few days prior to this story breaking 350,000 children were declared to have just gone missing from the southern border crossing.
It is very difficult if not nigh impossible to wrap one’s head around this level of darkness and evil.
This series in particular has brought to mind an alternate version of Game Theory, where all games are played by DPs/PPPs/DTs, etc. What's interesting is that some recorded behaviors seem like more extreme -- or more sophisticated? -- expressions of "normal" (sinful) behavior, but deeper look suggests a difference in quality.
I think it's possible that a DP would look at simplistic problems like The Prisoner's Dilemma in a completely alien way. That doesn’t mean they would "win the game"; they may not even be equipped to play it. Still, I think their proposed solutions would be intriguing.
I read of a study years ago that found that psychopaths behaved like economists predicted normal people would behave according to game theory. In other words, normal people don’t live up to economists’ expectations, but psychos do.
Non violent social psychopaths are the norm: everyone interacts with one or more. If they are only 2% of the population and the article explains why this may be an underestimate, that means 1 in 50 people. Any group/workplace/social gathering will have one or more by statistical odds. I also believe sociopaths exist on a spectrum: there are some that are worse than others and more predatory. Since I had several traumatic interactions with sociopaths I have been more on my guard and more aware.
Since then I have thought several people I encountered had dark triad symptoms. I just avoided them as it was the simplest option.
Just one comment: please use the standard academic/journalistic practice of explaining an acronym the first time it is introduced in each article. I had to hunt round to find out the DP is Dr Mitchell's self-coined neologism for Dark Personalities.
> They even have the “ability and willingness to weave a web of lies that can reach over years.” They have what seems like an innate sense of the art of the lie. They know just what details to change, omit, or emphasize. In doing so, they are able to portray themselves as the victims “when in fact they are the perpetrator.”
There's this fictional cartoon character in American satire called Pogo the Possum, 1949-75. One day he went down to the pond and on returning he announced "I have seen the Enemy and he is us..."
Never saw the character, alas. Was he psychopahtic? Were there more of them at that pond? I mean, why would anyone who never even thinks of doing any such thing take the blame for all of those disgusting deeds? Just curious.
No, Pogo wasn't psychopathic, Sergie, he was merely an amusingly poignant observer of ordinary eccentricity. Perhaps a more modern cartoon, "Calvin and Hobbes," may be familiar to you? Pogo was, in some ways, a precursor to Watterson's central characters.
That "we have met the enemy, and he is us" statement, was such a perfect observation of how common it is to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, that it really "stuck" in the minds of those of us that followed Pogo's adventures into symbolic reconstructions of our very human foibles.
One of Pogo's endearing traits, was that his irony seldom sneered. His "we" and "us" was his concession to humility, his awareness that he was by no means perfect and that we're all in this together. Well, most of us, at any rate.
Pogo is now in the public domain. His endearing adventures can be had for free at the internet archive. If you have the time, a review of the works at https://archive.org/details/WaltKellysPogo/Back%20to%20Earth/ And you may find yourself pleased that you took the time to check him out.
Some of these attributes I see as difficult to use, as everyone wants to present a "normal" or "acceptable" public image (unless their profession demands that they act abnormal). And people will tend to act or perform in social situations based on their associates. However, dishonest, devious and manipulative are important traits that should be testable. No normal honest person needs to conduct their life in a way that is chronically dishonest.
Attribute 15 is also important. But to test it you have to locate a situation that the individual obviously WAS responsible for. No one likes to be accused of things they didn't cause, though some kindhearted people will "take the blame" anyway just to end an argument.
I suppose the final question becomes: What can we do about this? Can you create a justice system that can locate such persons without punishing innocent people who the target will inevitably try to shift the blame to?
Adrian Raine’s book (linked) mentions the future possibility for a reliable psychopathy test, but I am doubtful. This book is very interesting and came out 10 years ago. There are identifiable causes for psychopathic behavior and can hope for such a test, but until then the best we can do is educate ourselves, and this series is a great start.
I agree. And PET scans looking at lack of functional connection between the inferior frontal lobes and limbic areas have many false positives. The same is true of MRI frontal lobe gray matter volume. I’m very doubtful that a reliable objective psychopathy test will ever be a possibility, at least in my lifetime.
My 6 year old daughter would not allow our Church youth director near her, nor would she look at him or talk to him, though he kept trying, laughing and teasing her every day. I told her it was okay to not like him if she didn't want to, that she didn't have to talk to him or let him touch her, and to tell me if he bothered her. I did not laugh at his antics, instead giving him blank stares. Our church blew apart up in a big sex scandal soon after that, and he was one of the ones accused of abuse. My daughter was saved from because I listened to her and encouraged her trust her instincts.
Excellent. You’re doing it right, Graham!
Yes! If you don’t like someone you don’t need to know why. Stay away. I’ve had to learn to override my logic circuit that says ‘you have no evidence.’
Kudos to you for not being religious
Truly outstanding series you've got going here.
The most difficult aspect of reining in the psychopaths and other dark personality predators and parasites that walk among us, is in teaching people to see beyond the masks. The late Andrew Vachss stated it so very simply as "behavior is truth."
And behavior, or perhaps it's better phrased as "behavioral outcomes" tell us what we need to know, insofar as structuring our pattern recognition is concerned.
I thought the article very insightful, in the way it emphasizes the sort of "shock and awe" stemming from the cognitive dissonance that people experience when first they get a glimpse at what lies behind "the mask."
That experience, of catching a glimpse "behind the curtain," is particularly meaningful because it is rarely something of exclusively intellectual interest. That personal involvement in the situation where the revelation occurs, emphasizes for the onlooker their vulnerability to the predator. In other words, there is a deeply emotional aspect, one that induces a rising, visceral horror at what has been revealed. Betrayal is conceptually central in evaluating the effect.
Yes, I feel a deep gratitude at this moment, gratitude for my good fortune to have read this truly excellent effort being made to help people to recognize the monsters that walk among us.
> personal involvement in the situation where the revelation occurs, emphasizes for the onlooker their vulnerability to the predator.
The majority of the professionals surveyed who'd seen these predators "mask off" reported being afraid for their safety. The predators malevolence and vindictiveness strikes fear into the hearts of those who see. (Harrison mentioned this in an earlier article in the series.)
"The majority of the professionals surveyed who'd seen these predators "mask off" reported being afraid for their safety. The predators malevolence and vindictiveness strikes fear into the hearts of those who see."
Yes, Jerome, and a very good point indeed. The professionals who deal with the extreme example of criminally-indicted predators fear for their personal safety, and that's something that scales "downward," as well.
The murderers are only the publicly visible "tip of the iceberg," there are millions of other dark personality types walking among us, stopping short of physical violence. They threaten safety on a level more accurately described as "security." I've watched them lie, cheat and steal for decades in the workplace and create havoc in daily personal dynamics in homes and communities. I suspect that you might not disagree, because you've seen them too.
Most people have encountered them, but few recognize them for who and what they are. What's so laudable about Mr. Koehli's emerging series of essays (aside from being well-written and interesting,) is that it correlates the trait expression in a manner that assists pattern recognition in daily life.
I've long considered general lack of awareness about psychopathy at less-then-lethal levels to be a tremendously important societal problem, an urgent one.
When our "intuition" (subconscious pattern recognition, really) picks up on the behavior patterns in daily life, we can take measures to avoid these people once identified. It's impossible to avoid them in the workplace; they must be dealt with.
There are two challenges to dealing with the trait expressions in the workplace; their techniques and the simple fact that their workplace performance metrics mimic profitability for the organization. I say "mimic" because objectively and accurately observed from a fully-informed peer-level perspective, their actual performance is ordinary and unexceptional.
In reality, their performance metrics are a cost transfer. Their trait expression reduces the honestly-earned performance metrics of others. I have repeatedly witnessed the termination of employment of those the DTs have victimized. Eventually, the DT is usually expelled, but not before they have wrecked the careers of others.
From a management perspective, it takes a while to sort them out; approximately two to three years, on average, in today's environment. It takes about a year to recognize them, to differentiate their behavior patterns from ordinary greed and incompetence or ignorance. Expelling them from the workplace then takes between one and two years as the documentation is accumulated.
The only effective manner of restricting the damage they do, requires an approach foreign to benign and supportive management cultures; absolute and unwavering ruthlessness. I'll end by expressing it colloquially; corralling 'em introduces a level of awfulness that casts a shadow over the spirits of everyone involved.
If you’re interesting in writing a longer version of this comment, I’d publish it, Ted.
I am humbled and very deeply moved by your warm regard, Mr. Koehli.
Please allow me to work something up and, if it doesn't pass muster, I'll content myself with the honor of your perusal and private critique.
But what to do when the predators are managing the joint? Leave?
"what to do when the predators are managing the joint? Leave?"
You've touched on the heart of the matter. The answer is "well, that depends."
It depends on the level of management that is expressing the trait(s,) and one's level of exposure to them. Viewed from inside infested organizations, there are hierarchies of exposure. Speaking for myself, I have no little regret over leaving one such situation. In retrospect after a few decades, I can see a number of ways that I might have altered the outcome by simply remaining and enduring.
Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, and there could have been no way of predicting that two of the three predators would die shortly after my departure, of natural causes (the misery of which were richly deserved,) and the third dismissed in disgrace. Of the three, only one might have passed the entirety of the tests in the DSM, the other two were opportunists expressing DT traits at a clearly subclinical level. Intellectually insolvent and morally bankrupt, those two, but not psychopaths.
Well, peering over one's shoulder is all well and good, but the trick is to learn from it. When I left, I also left a cadre of really wonderful people who had no option other than "duck and cover" for a few years. At the same time, my quiet departure was a grave disservice to the CEO. Almost exactly twenty years later, he accepted my apology for not going to him immediately, laying all the cards on the table and seeing the matter through.
To answer your question succinctly; if the trait expression is at the very apex of the hierarchy; yes, leave.
Often enough, however, the exorcism required, is of those in the middle levels of the hierarchy. I have watched strong and smart people outlast and outmaneuver the predators and parasites, though at no little cost to their health and spirit, to be sure.
Leave or stay, fight or retreat, it all leaves scars, regardless.
Upon further reflection, your question appears almost as a timely koan, inducing a sort of "gestalt," one centered around the purpose of such exposition. You would think it obvious,that the reason is to define and reify a sort of praxeology of exorcism, if you'll forgive the metaphor.
"And change that internally."
And there you go again, A, making sense of it all.
By leaving the situation I refer to above, I wound up in a business failure doomed by managerial cupidity and incompetence. In my urgency to avoid that very reenactment you so perspicaciously refer to , I chose unwisely, wasting nearly two years, and that was much to my disadvantage.
The decision to stay, I think, is weighted by one's investment, and I am not confining the term to remuneration in saying so.
The irony is that I had a goodly part of my answer in two writings; Emerson's essay on "Self Reliance" and Ringer's "Looking Out For Number One." Not to go all "woo" on you here, but it seems to me that God was "whacking me upside the head" repeatedly, attempting to get my attention and direct it toward things I'd already learned.
Add in Berne's transactional analysis and Stoddard's extension of Skinner's work on conditioned response, and my own myopia is revealed. This brings us full-circle to forgiveness. In this case, of oneself.
Thanks, I'd seen it around, and reviewed a PDF on your recommendation. It seems well worth the reading, so I'll be ordering a print copy.
Excellent commentary thank you.
So true, A, so very true. The scars last a lifetime.
All the best to you in that endeavor, A.
Been struggling in that direction myself, for many long years. The act of summoning the ruthlessness required when dealing with them can make it very troubling to "look in the mirror," and that summoning happens only after having repeatedly been on the receiving end of their predatory behaviors, year after traumatic year.
The only thing I can share with absolute confidence, is that forgiveness seems to be one of the keys, defined as "cessation of requiring retribution." We often have difficulty forgiving ourselves for what has happened, and it isn't obvious to us that this is an integral part of what makes the trauma so persistent.
That's a lot of insight you've conveyed in one concise post, A. Much food for thought and I thank you for it.
I owned a business with a person I believe is a psychopath. He didn’t hurt me much. But his presence was dark. Very hard to put your finger on as he was very socially adept. At one point we sponsored a youth club. Some things began to go missing around our business. We knew we had a thief somewhere. The teen who was the president of the youth club was absolutely clean cut. Polite, nice…all the rest. My biz partner identified him as the thief. I said he was crazy. They found this kid had a lair in the forest with stolen goods from all over. I asked my partner how he knew. He said ‘I was that kid. I was selling drugs at school (pot), stealing, and no one had the faintest idea. I could see right through him.’ Any Mom would have been thrilled to have either of them dating their daughter.
Good example. Shows how difficult this subject can be. Generally speaking, though, we are looking for people who are doing more than being petty thieves.
I wouldn’t assume that’s all he’s capable of
Interesting article. I would like to point out how much easier it is for these predators to operate today when most people interact digitally. Predators can more easily manipulate their public perception, and other people never get a glimpse of who they really are.
This is also true of urban areas. The key is the ability to move on before people catch on to what you’re doing and your reputation tells on you.
John Wayne Gacey used to perform as a clown at children's parties. Richard Ramirez was a winning bachelor on the Dating Game. You will not know if you encounter a serial killer unless you're their next victim. They blend in that well🫤
Many people will go their whole lives without knowing that they’ve dealt with one of these monsters. But once you’ve unmasked one- you are like Neo in The Matrix-they start to stand out for you like code running down the walls. And then it all makes sense.
It’s hard to believe that people like this exist if all you’ve ever known are normally flawed people
Ted wrote “truly outstanding series you’ve got going here” and I wholeheartedly agree, this makes for absolutely fascinating reading! Thank you so much for writing and sharing your thoughts on all you have learned and acquired through many hours of intensive reading and for then presenting it in such a clear and easy to understand straightforward manner, much appreciated!
With all of the who’s who named around the p diddy story alot of those people would have to fit into the above category and the proceeding article to this one dark pathological personality that you wrote about. I can’t help but notice just a few days prior to this story breaking 350,000 children were declared to have just gone missing from the southern border crossing.
It is very difficult if not nigh impossible to wrap one’s head around this level of darkness and evil.
This series in particular has brought to mind an alternate version of Game Theory, where all games are played by DPs/PPPs/DTs, etc. What's interesting is that some recorded behaviors seem like more extreme -- or more sophisticated? -- expressions of "normal" (sinful) behavior, but deeper look suggests a difference in quality.
I think it's possible that a DP would look at simplistic problems like The Prisoner's Dilemma in a completely alien way. That doesn’t mean they would "win the game"; they may not even be equipped to play it. Still, I think their proposed solutions would be intriguing.
I read of a study years ago that found that psychopaths behaved like economists predicted normal people would behave according to game theory. In other words, normal people don’t live up to economists’ expectations, but psychos do.
Now that you put it that way... yeah, I can see it.
Makes me wonder about the economists.
Excellent series!
This is so good! We've got to spread awareness of these attributes!
Non violent social psychopaths are the norm: everyone interacts with one or more. If they are only 2% of the population and the article explains why this may be an underestimate, that means 1 in 50 people. Any group/workplace/social gathering will have one or more by statistical odds. I also believe sociopaths exist on a spectrum: there are some that are worse than others and more predatory. Since I had several traumatic interactions with sociopaths I have been more on my guard and more aware.
Since then I have thought several people I encountered had dark triad symptoms. I just avoided them as it was the simplest option.
Yes, that is perfectly correct. You can't if they are your boss, for example. I was just speaking for myself.
Just one comment: please use the standard academic/journalistic practice of explaining an acronym the first time it is introduced in each article. I had to hunt round to find out the DP is Dr Mitchell's self-coined neologism for Dark Personalities.
Absolutely fascinating. Thank you
> They even have the “ability and willingness to weave a web of lies that can reach over years.” They have what seems like an innate sense of the art of the lie. They know just what details to change, omit, or emphasize. In doing so, they are able to portray themselves as the victims “when in fact they are the perpetrator.”
Hmmmmm... where have I seen that?
There's this fictional cartoon character in American satire called Pogo the Possum, 1949-75. One day he went down to the pond and on returning he announced "I have seen the Enemy and he is us..."
Never saw the character, alas. Was he psychopahtic? Were there more of them at that pond? I mean, why would anyone who never even thinks of doing any such thing take the blame for all of those disgusting deeds? Just curious.
No, Pogo wasn't psychopathic, Sergie, he was merely an amusingly poignant observer of ordinary eccentricity. Perhaps a more modern cartoon, "Calvin and Hobbes," may be familiar to you? Pogo was, in some ways, a precursor to Watterson's central characters.
That "we have met the enemy, and he is us" statement, was such a perfect observation of how common it is to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory, that it really "stuck" in the minds of those of us that followed Pogo's adventures into symbolic reconstructions of our very human foibles.
One of Pogo's endearing traits, was that his irony seldom sneered. His "we" and "us" was his concession to humility, his awareness that he was by no means perfect and that we're all in this together. Well, most of us, at any rate.
Pogo is now in the public domain. His endearing adventures can be had for free at the internet archive. If you have the time, a review of the works at https://archive.org/details/WaltKellysPogo/Back%20to%20Earth/ And you may find yourself pleased that you took the time to check him out.
Learn about the concept of government deception in my podcast here:
https://soberchristiangentlemanpodcast.substack.com/p/s1-scgp-the-government-deception
Some of these attributes I see as difficult to use, as everyone wants to present a "normal" or "acceptable" public image (unless their profession demands that they act abnormal). And people will tend to act or perform in social situations based on their associates. However, dishonest, devious and manipulative are important traits that should be testable. No normal honest person needs to conduct their life in a way that is chronically dishonest.
Attribute 15 is also important. But to test it you have to locate a situation that the individual obviously WAS responsible for. No one likes to be accused of things they didn't cause, though some kindhearted people will "take the blame" anyway just to end an argument.
I suppose the final question becomes: What can we do about this? Can you create a justice system that can locate such persons without punishing innocent people who the target will inevitably try to shift the blame to?
Adrian Raine’s book (linked) mentions the future possibility for a reliable psychopathy test, but I am doubtful. This book is very interesting and came out 10 years ago. There are identifiable causes for psychopathic behavior and can hope for such a test, but until then the best we can do is educate ourselves, and this series is a great start.
https://a.co/d/6LMoxdH
I agree. And PET scans looking at lack of functional connection between the inferior frontal lobes and limbic areas have many false positives. The same is true of MRI frontal lobe gray matter volume. I’m very doubtful that a reliable objective psychopathy test will ever be a possibility, at least in my lifetime.