# Percentages of Sociopaths in Banking?



## RobynC

I wonder how many people in banking are sociopathic, and how many have somehow become corrupted over the years and acquired a type of learned sociopathy?


----------



## birthday

You'll find sociopaths in all areas where there is authority. 

Scary, huh?

just as long as you don't open up your heart to them, you should be okay.


----------



## RobynC

@birthday

I know sociopaths are located wherever there is power...


----------



## FearsomeCritter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)


----------



## Valdyr

I'm not sure any kind of pathology, learned or otherwise, is at play.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that these bankers are actually doing something morally wrong (whether this is true or not isn't the point). The reason they are more easily able to do these things could be due to a sort of "cognitive distance" from the results of their actions. After all, they aren't being directly reminded that there are people being affected, the causal link is very indirect, etc. This sort of cognitive bias seems like a more plausible explanation than mass pathology. The latter view could stem from the intuition to think of the bankers as "essentially" bad people, as opposed to their supposedly immoral actions simply being due to some combination of cognitive bias, the structure they're operating in, available information, etc.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

Valdyr said:


> I'm not sure any kind of pathology, learned or otherwise, is at play.
> 
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that these bankers are actually doing something morally wrong (whether this is true or not isn't the point). The reason they are more easily able to do these things could be due to a sort of "cognitive distance" from the results of their actions. After all, they aren't being directly reminded that there are people being affected, the causal link is very indirect, etc. This sort of cognitive bias seems like a more plausible explanation than mass pathology. The latter view could stem from the intuition to think of the bankers as "essentially" bad people, as opposed to their supposedly immoral actions simply being due to some combination of cognitive bias, the structure they're operating in, available information, etc.


I can't "Thank" posts right now! :frustrating::angry::sad:

You make excellent points here. The lack of seeing the consequences directly allows people to distance themselves emotionally. Nobody really cares about others, unless they know them. This has been demonstrated before, people will spend a lot more money to help a small number of people who they've met than they will to help a much larger number of people that they don't know. This is why those sad starving African children's charities use commercials that show the kids. People like to say "Well I care about starving kids in Africa!" but they really don't, it is nothing but vanity. A self-congratulatory pat on the back. If they actually cared, they would sell their iPods and send the money to them. But they don't do this, and if you call them on that they quickly point out "Well that isn't practical!" Yet if it was one of their family members who were starving, they would happily sell off some of their material possessions to help them. 

Studies also show that as people gain more and more power, they gradually and continually lose their empathy. This helps because it allows you to make the tough calls. Like the CEO who has to lay off thousands of workers or the military commander who sends soldiers off to die. Could you imagine the stress the average person would feel if they had to fire one of their friends, much less thousands of them? They'd be a wreck. By not knowing these people, you don't have to care about them as much, which allows you to make the tough but necessary calls, which also allows you to screw them over for your own benefit.

I also think that most of the people bitching about bankers, businessmen, CEOs, and so forth would do _exactly_ the same things if they were in their position.


----------



## dagnytaggart

RobynC said:


> @birthday
> 
> I know sociopaths are located wherever there is power...


Only the bright ones (IQ 135+).

The average/dumb ones aren't. The really dumb ones eventually get apprehended or pay the price pretty directly and quickly. The average ones? They're where everyone else is, their harmfulness undetected unless you're in their circle, in which case they'll accept the chance to fuck you over if it somehow benefits them. 

Actually, I think we're all sociopaths. I don't think empathy is a natural thing. Fake empathy, as a means for integrating socially and benefiting from such, yes. It's an adaptive survival mechanism. Sometimes we learn to fake it so early and become so accustomed to doing so, we mistaken that for our actual nature. That doesn't mean it is.

If I knew that I'd suffer absolutely NO consequence for harming someone - whether legally, socially, physically, or spiritually (going to hell when you die) - I wouldn't hesitate.

This won't be a popular stance, but I think it's the truth, and the truth's not pretty.


----------



## dagnytaggart

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> I can't "Thank" posts right now! :frustrating::angry::sad:
> 
> You make excellent points here. The lack of seeing the consequences directly allows people to distance themselves emotionally. Nobody really cares about others, unless they know them. This has been demonstrated before, people will spend a lot more money to help a small number of people who they've met than they will to help a much larger number of people that they don't know. This is why those sad starving African children's charities use commercials that show the kids. People like to say "Well I care about starving kids in Africa!" but they really don't, it is nothing but vanity. A self-congratulatory pat on the back. If they actually cared, they would sell their iPods and send the money to them. But they don't do this, and if you call them on that they quickly point out "Well that isn't practical!" Yet if it was one of their family members who were starving, they would happily sell off some of their material possessions to help them.


And people only even care about those they know because of the unwritten rule of reciprocity that we subconsciously believe to be true. In our tribal lifestyle, if a person won't tend to an ailing tribe member, then later on when that person needs help himself, the tribe won't see him worthy of helping. 



> Studies also show that as people gain more and more power, they gradually and continually lose their empathy. This helps because it allows you to make the tough calls. Like the CEO who has to lay off thousands of workers or the military commander who sends soldiers off to die. Could you imagine the stress the average person would feel if they had to fire one of their friends, much less thousands of them? They'd be a wreck. By not knowing these people, you don't have to care about them as much, which allows you to make the tough but necessary calls, which also allows you to screw them over for your own benefit.


It's not that you lose empathy (again, I don't really think people have it in the first place to lose) - it goes back to my above point. Unless you're a politician voted in directly by the people, thousands of strangers are not going to reciprocate the impact you had on their lives later on. Unlike a close friend could. In the case of politicians, that's why you have so many politicians making unwise decisions all on the basis of pleasing a million strangers - because they will reciprocate directly in the form of votes or lack thereof.



> I also think that most of the people bitching about bankers, businessmen, CEOs, and so forth would do _exactly_ the same things if they were in their position.


Precisely. Often, the "callous" thing to do simply makes sense when it comes to the bottom line. Not always, but often. I've had to fire one of my best friends working for me, and this was when he was about to go homeless due to illness. But that wasn't a concern to me, and I still don't have any guilt on the decision. The bottom line was, getting rid of him improved the bottom line. 

I'm a small business owner though, so I see directly how that would be the case. Average employees, who are powerless to make decisions that could significantly harm anyone, are at the mercy of others....mercy. It benefits THEM individually if others show mercy and "empathy", so an average employee will trumpet the virtues of empathy. It's as selfish a motive as that of the banker's - to maximize their own personal situation.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

dagnytaggart said:


> Only the bright ones (IQ 135+).
> 
> The average/dumb ones aren't. The really dumb ones eventually get apprehended or pay the price pretty directly and quickly. The average ones? They're where everyone else is, their harmfulness undetected unless you're in their circle, in which case they'll accept the chance to fuck you over if it somehow benefits them.


Very true. The slower more impulsive ones make up a large chunk of our prison population.



dagnytaggart said:


> Actually, I think we're all sociopaths. I don't think empathy is a natural thing. Fake empathy, as a means for integrating socially and benefiting from such, yes. It's an adaptive survival mechanism. Sometimes we learn to fake it so early and become so accustomed to doing so, we mistaken that for our actual nature. That doesn't mean it is.


I sorta agree, but I sorta don't. Empathy, as a feeling, I believe is real. But I believe it is a sliding scale from extremely altruistic (Masochistic Personality Disorder AKA Self-Defeating Personality Disorder) all the way to no empathy (Antisocial Personality Disorder AKA Sociopathy AKA Psychopathy). However I believe that you hit the nail on the head about it being a largely social and self-congratulatory thing. People behaving like Oprah saying "Look at me! Look at me! Look how wonderful and nice I am! Do you see me giving money to the poor? Do you see it? See how nice I am? How wonderful I am? How caring I am?" 



dagnytaggart said:


> If I knew that I'd suffer absolutely NO consequence for harming someone - whether legally, socially, physically, or spiritually (going to hell when you die) - I wouldn't hesitate.
> 
> This won't be a popular stance, but I think it's the truth, and the truth's not pretty.


I think a lot of people would take this stance, even if they won't publicly admit to it. :wink:



dagnytaggart said:


> And people only even care about those they know because of the unwritten rule of reciprocity that we subconsciously believe to be true. In our tribal lifestyle, if a person won't tend to an ailing tribe member, then later on when that person needs help himself, the tribe won't see him worthy of helping.


Very true. I was watching a documentary by Richard Dawkins awhile back (I can't for the life of me remember what it was called), and he talked about tit for tat in the animal kingdom. It was fascinating. He talked about how vampire bats will vomit up blood to their friends that didn't get to eat, but if their friends won't return the favor they'll basically say "fuck em!" Likewise he talked about birds helping each other pick ticks off of their necks since they can't do it themselves. 



dagnytaggart said:


> It's not that you lose empathy (again, I don't really think people have it in the first place to lose) - it goes back to my above point. Unless you're a politician voted in directly by the people, thousands of strangers are not going to reciprocate the impact you had on their lives later on. Unlike a close friend could. In the case of politicians, that's why you have so many politicians making unwise decisions all on the basis of pleasing a million strangers - because they will reciprocate directly in the form of votes or lack thereof.


Actually they do lose their ability to empathize with people. Even based on arbitrary power given to them, the subjects will display less empathy and less ability to understand the emotions of others. Which politicians, I think most of them start off corrupt, rather than become corrupted as time goes on.



dagnytaggart said:


> Precisely. Often, the "callous" thing to do simply makes sense when it comes to the bottom line. Not always, but often. I've had to fire one of my best friends working for me, and this was when he was about to go homeless due to illness. But that wasn't a concern to me, and I still don't have any guilt on the decision. The bottom line was, getting rid of him improved the bottom line.
> 
> I'm a small business owner though, so I see directly how that would be the case. Average employees, who are powerless to make decisions that could significantly harm anyone, are at the mercy of others....mercy. It benefits THEM individually if others show mercy and "empathy", so an  average employee will trumpet the virtues of empathy. It's as selfish a  motive as that of the banker's - to maximize their own personal  situation.


While I probably wouldn't fire my best friend, I do agree with the general principle here. :wink:


----------



## Luke

There would be some, plus a lot more cold hearted ruthless people, who may not fit the exact definition of "sociopath" but their behaviour would be very similar. I think you will find this in any cut throat industry where having a ruthless nature is a strong advantage. 

Interestingly, 20% of prison inmates fit the criteria of a psychopath, but they are responsible for 50% of violent crime. So they are present in greater numbers in certain populations and contribute to more than their fair share of the violence in society. Perhaps they are also over represented in ruthless white collar professions and contribute to a large proportion of white collar crimes? It makes sense that they would be over represented in environments where their personalities allow them to flourish.


----------



## RobynC

Sociopaths gravitate to power because all humans gravitate to power. 

The fact is though that sociopaths are missing the ingredients that most people have such as empathy, capacity for remorse or regret _(other than regretting failing at their efforts, and a potential punishment that can ensue)_ and effectively the warm emotions that make society work. 

When you take away all these things all that's left is the will to power and the will to win. Effectively conscience and empathy get in the way of most people doing everything they can to just dominate everybody and pursue absolute power simply for the sake of having it and using it. This is actually a good thing when you consider that sociopaths only make up about a percent of the population, yet they cause most of it's suffering.

While power will make people behave like narcissists and sociopaths, we call them people who have become corrupted by power; the fact is that sociopaths are effectively naturally corrupt and are effectively force multipliers of corruption.


----------



## Waiting

dagnytaggart said:


> Only the bright ones (IQ 135+).
> 
> The average/dumb ones aren't. The really dumb ones eventually get apprehended or pay the price pretty directly and quickly. The average ones? They're where everyone else is, their harmfulness undetected unless you're in their circle, in which case they'll accept the chance to fuck you over if it somehow benefits them.
> 
> Actually, I think we're all sociopaths. I don't think empathy is a natural thing. Fake empathy, as a means for integrating socially and benefiting from such, yes. It's an adaptive survival mechanism. Sometimes we learn to fake it so early and become so accustomed to doing so, we mistaken that for our actual nature. That doesn't mean it is.
> 
> If I knew that I'd suffer absolutely NO consequence for harming someone - whether legally, socially, physically, or spiritually (going to hell when you die) - I wouldn't hesitate.
> 
> This won't be a popular stance, but I think it's the truth, and the truth's not pretty.


I disagree with the latter part of your post. When I feel empathy it is genuine, I dislike seeing people in situations that I know would feel horrible, lest it be a movie or something of the sort. I do admit, sometimes I don't feel any real empathy, by real I mean the actual feeling. I still act from that standpoint and what I would do, because I feel it is right. Sometimes I just don't feel anything it seems. I do believe that empathy is real and in our nature, however, not constructed. Even if suffering no consequences, to know that I made someones life worse or painful doesn't sit well.


----------



## Thomas D M Thompson

Valdyr said:


> I'm not sure any kind of pathology, learned or otherwise, is at play.
> 
> Let's suppose for the sake of argument that these bankers are actually doing something morally wrong (whether this is true or not isn't the point). The reason they are more easily able to do these things could be due to a sort of "cognitive distance" from the results of their actions. After all, they aren't being directly reminded that there are people being affected, the causal link is very indirect, etc. This sort of cognitive bias seems like a more plausible explanation than mass pathology. The latter view could stem from the intuition to think of the bankers as "essentially" bad people, as opposed to their supposedly immoral actions simply being due to some combination of cognitive bias, the structure they're operating in, available information, etc.



Ah the Milgram experiment, a famous indicator that if you are given an order from an authoritative voice you will follow along regardless of it being immoral or not. It's human nature unfortunately

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dagnytaggart

Waiting said:


> I disagree with the latter part of your post. When I feel empathy it is genuine, I dislike seeing people in situations that I know would feel horrible, lest it be a movie or something of the sort. I do admit, sometimes I don't feel any real empathy, by real I mean the actual feeling. I still act from that standpoint and what I would do, because I feel it is right. Sometimes I just don't feel anything it seems. I do believe that empathy is real and in our nature, however, not constructed. Even if suffering no consequences, to know that I made someones life worse or painful doesn't sit well.


Interesting. I don't think I've ever felt that way. Only the possible external actions, whether in the present or down the road, police my actions. And you're positive that your empathy is innate rather than indoctrinated into you at a young age? We can gather up biases and conform to what our environment wishes of us earlier than we can remember. For instance, most of us can't remember anything back during when we were a 1-year-old, but I've read studies that babies of that age can be socially influenced.

And that can blur the separation of innateness and acquisition of it, or of its demonstration.


----------



## Waiting

dagnytaggart said:


> Interesting. I don't think I've ever felt that way. Only the possible external actions, whether in the present or down the road, police my actions. And you're positive that your empathy is innate rather than indoctrinated into you at a young age? We can gather up biases and conform to what our environment wishes of us earlier than we can remember. For instance, most of us can't remember anything back during when we were a 1-year-old, but I've read studies that babies of that age can be socially influenced.
> 
> And that can blur the separation of innateness and acquisition of it, or of its demonstration.


I am certain that it isn't conditioning for a number of reasons. For me it has to do with righteousness. The better of a person I am being the more I tend to feel it and consequently try to help people whether it is known to be my aim or not. In fact, I'd rather it not be known often times, I believe that is better for me. There certainly is an aspect of empathy that is conditioned, but I've never bought into that. I see through feigned empathy, not even feigned necessarily, but more rather programmed, very easily. Depending on my mood I occasionally will tell people that they don't really care. It's just a different type of empathy I guess, less common.


----------



## Einstein

Niccolo Machiavelli said:


> People like to say "Well I care about starving kids in Africa!" but they really don't, it is nothing but vanity. A self-congratulatory pat on the back. If they actually cared, they would sell their iPods and send the money to them. But they don't do this, and if you call them on that they quickly point out "Well that isn't practical!" Yet if it was one of their family members who were starving, they would happily sell off some of their material possessions to help them.


I wouldn't sell my iPod to help a starving family member...and yes I'm going into the field of banking.


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli

Einstein said:


> I wouldn't sell my iPod to help a starving family member...and yes I'm going into the field of banking.


I like the way you think! :wink::laughing::crazy:


----------



## Quinlan

birthday said:


> You'll find sociopaths in all areas where there is authority.
> 
> Scary, huh?


That doesn't make me feel scared. It doesn't make me feel anything... :crazy:


----------



## birthday

@qjshanley 
Not -so-obvious sarcasm


----------



## Quinlan

birthday said:


> @qjshanley
> Not -so-obvious sarcasm


Does it make you happy @birthday?


----------

