Kevin Dutton, Ph.D., is a fabulous writer. Unfortunately, in his new book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths—What saints, spies, and serial killers can teach us about success, he uses his prodigious skill with words to promote a fundamentally flawed thesis.
What is the thesis? That psychopathy, “in small doses,” is good for us. Here’s what Dutton writes in the preface of the book:
Psychopathy can also be good for us, at least in moderation. Like anxiety, depression, and quite a few other psychological disorders, it can at times be adaptive. Psychopaths, as we shall discover, have a variety of attributes—personal magnetism and a genius for disguise being just the starter pack—which, once you know how to harness them and keep them in check, often confer considerable advantages not just in the workplace, but in everyday life. Psychopathy is like sunlight. Overexposure can hasten one’s demise in grotesque, carcinogenic fashion. But regulated exposure at controlled and optimal levels can have a significant positive impact on well-being and quality of life.
In the pages that follow we’ll examine these attributes in detail, and learn how incorporating them into our own psychological skill set can dramatically transform our lives. Of course, it’s in no way my intention to glamorize the actions of psychopaths—certainly not the actions of dysfunctional psychopaths, anyway. That would be like glamorizing a cognitive melanoma: the malignant machinations of cancer of the personality. But there’s evidence to suggest that psychopathy, in small doses at least, is personality with a tan—and it can have surprising benefits.
Kevin Dutton has a Ph.D. in psychology. He’s a research psychologist and an honorary affiliated member of the Calleva Research Centre for Evolution and Human Sciences at the University of Oxford, England. In writing The Wisdom of Psychopaths, he interviewed all of the top experts in the field of psychopathy. Then he cherry-picked the information to present an incomplete and lopsided view of psychopathy, emphasizing the “positives” and ignoring the negatives, such as the fact that psychopaths live their lives by exploiting people.
Persuasive writing style
How did he do this? Dutton used tried-and-true techniques of magazine journalists and direct mail copywriters (both of which I am).
The difference between writing for magazines and writing for newspapers is that while news articles are supposed to be objective, magazine articles are unabashedly subjective. (By the way, there is no such thing as objective journalism, even in the newspaper business. Simply selecting which facts to include in a story is subjective. Complete objectivity is impossible.)
The purpose of a magazine article is to convince the reader of the author’s point of view. When I studied magazine journalism at Syracuse University, I was taught to not give equal weight to opposing viewpoints. I was taught to acknowledge opposing viewpoints, then present an argument to prove they were wrong.
For example, Dutton wrote above that he didn’t want to “glamorize the actions of psychopaths,” but then he goes ahead and says psychopathy can have benefits. He spends the rest of his book glamorizing psychopaths, and creating an illusion that psychopaths can be “harnessed” and “kept in check.”
The most dangerous thing Dutton does is employ a direct mail copywriting technique called verisimilitude, which is defined as “the appearance or semblance of truth.” (The comedian Stephen Colbert calls this “truthiness.”) For example, on page 11 Dutton writes:
Psychopaths are fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless, and focused. Yet contrary to popular belief, they are not necessarily violent. And if that sounds good, well, it is.
The way Dutton describes psychopaths is technically true. But he neglects to mention the most salient characteristics of a psychopath, at least according to Lovefraud’s research: Deceitfulness and manipulation. He also doesn’t include traits like exploitative, irresponsible, aggressive and reckless.
So what would happen if he told the whole truth? Well, here it is:
Psychopaths are fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless, focused, deceitful, manipulative, exploitative, irresponsible, aggressive and reckless. Yet contrary to popular belief, they are not necessarily violent. And if that sounds good, well, it is.
What do you think? If Dutton wrote the above paragraph on page 11 of the book, would you believe any of the rest of it?
Twisted research
He quotes a multitude of experts and research studies in support of his points, giving the impression that these experts and studies prove what he advocates. Which, in a way, they do. The problem is that Dutton tells only half of the story, uses the experts to support the half that he is telling, and totally ignores the rest of the story.
For example, on page 61, Dutton talks about the work of Scott Lilienfeld, who developed the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, a comprehensive questionnaire designed to work with both criminal and non-criminal psychopaths. Dutton quotes Lilienfeld as saying, “We reasoned that psychopathy was on a spectrum.” Then Dutton writes:
Lilienfeld’s notion of psychopathy being on a spectrum makes a good deal of sense. If psychopathy is conceptualized as an extension of normal personality, then it follows logically that psychopathy itself must be scalar, and that more or less of it in any given context might confer considerable advantages. Such a premise is not without precedent in the annals of mental dysfunction (if, indeed, psychopathy is dysfunctional, given its benefits under certain conditions).
So Dutton quotes Lilienfeld, and then transitions into the statement that more or less psychopathy “might confer considerable advantages.” I wonder if Dutton studied elementary logic, because one statement has nothing to do with the other.
On page 121, Dutton describes a conversation with James Blair, in which he asks, “Does it pay to be a psychopath?” Here’s what comes next:
Blair was cautious. It’s a dangerous road to go down. “It’s true that if bad things are happening the individual with psychopathy might be less worried about it,” he told me. “However, it’s not so clear that their decision making in such situations would be particularly good, though. Moreover, by not analyzing levels of threat appropriately, they might walk into danger, rather than away from it.”
In other words, if we could somehow defrost the reasoning a bit, take some of the chill out of the logic, then yes, psychopathic traits may well confer advantages. Otherwise, forget it.
I did not interpret Blair’s quote to at all signify that “it pays to be a psychopath.” But Dutton brazenly twisted Blair’s words around to suit his own argument.
Cavalier statements
This book is filled with cavalier statements that ignore the essential truth of psychopaths: They are lying, manipulating exploiters who cause considerable damage to almost everyone around them. For example, on page 106 Dutton writes:
Ironically, the rule-bending, risk-taking, thrill-seeking individuals who were responsible for tipping the world economy over the edge are precisely the same personalities who will come to fore in the wreckage.
Hello? Yes, research has indicated that the recent world financial collapse was likely caused by psychopaths. Dutton doesn’t consider this to be a problem?
Then there’s page 163:
Was psychopathy a “medicine for modern times”? Could taking it in moderation, twiddling those dials a little to the right on our respective psychopath mixing decks—at certain times, in certain specific contexts—actually be good for us?
And page 192:
Not all psychopaths are saints. And not all saints are psychopaths. But there’s evidence to suggest that deep within the corridors of the brain, psychopathy and sainthood share secret neural office space. And that some psychopathic attributes—stoicism, the ability to regulate emotion, to live in the moment, to enter altered states of awareness, to be heroic, fearless, yes, even empathic—are also inherently spiritual in nature, and not only improve one’s own well-being, but also that of others.
Regulate emotion? Has Dutton ever witnessed a psychopath flying into a rage? And by the way, this last quote was in the section of the book entitled “Saint Paul—the patron saint of psychopaths.”
Deja vu
I was married to a psychopath. My ex-husband, James Montgomery, personified the traits that Dutton extols: fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless, and focused. He also personified the traits that Dutton ignored: deceitful, manipulative, exploitative, irresponsible, aggressive and reckless.
As I was reading The Wisdom of Psychopaths, I felt a disturbing sense of deja vu that mounted with each page. About a third of the way through the book, I realized why I was uncomfortable: Kevin Dutton’s writing was very similar that of my ex-husband.
Montgomery was exceptionally proud of his skill with words. Verbally and in writing, he could paint shimmering pictures with his words, glistening images of our lifelong happiness, his future entrepreneurial success, or whatever he was selling at the moment. Sometimes I’d be aware that Montgomery’s statements seemed a bit off, but I was distracted by his vivid descriptions or elegant turns of phrase. Or, there was enough truth in his words that I couldn’t say he was lying. Or, he had neglected to convey full and complete information, which I didn’t discover until much later.
Unlike when I was dealing with my ex-husband, I am able to reread, annotate, and analyze Dutton’s words. I find them to be full of holes, mischaracterizations, distortion and omission. This book is a disservice to society.
I feel sorry for anyone who reads The Wisdom of Psychopaths without a prior understanding of the disorder. Because of Dutton’s flashy writing and extensive references to scientific research, the uninformed reader might actually believe what he says.
I didn’t write that is isn’t impulsive; I wrote IF he isn’t impulsive then he can’t be antisocial. I really havnt been following his case so I don’t know if he is impulsive. If he is impulsive then he is antisocial, no doubt; I agree.
Bird,
the study of psychopathology IS in it’s infancy. The study of neurology IS in it’s infancy. The experts don’t even agree on most things. Robert Hare, is up in arms over the latest DSM. There is so much controversy, that we don’t even have a definition that differentiates ASPD from sociopathy or psychopathy or even malignant narcissism.
That’s why I feel most comfortable using the word “spath”. It hasn’t been polluted by “expert” opinions. It’s the word we (on LF) use to describe human evil, a biblical perspective with an equal portion of psychology thrown in.
I’ve come to the conclusion that we can use the frameworks of experts, even experts who disagree, along with our own experiences, to get a more accurate understanding of “spaths”.
Other perspectives from other disciplines and authors, including, Alice Miller, Elaine Morgan, Rene Girard, Eric Fromm etc… have filled out this frame work for me.
Just painting by the numbers is not going to be sufficient.
Stick around and read and post for a couple of years. You’ll find that experience is the best source of wisdom for anything you want to understand. Experts come in all shapes and sizes.
In taking carcinogens after having cancer i can see your argument that he fits the definition of reckless disregard for his safety; however it’s to feed his grandiose sense of self and Preoccupation with unlimited success so Doesn’t that point back to narcissism? If he had reckless disregard for his safety that didn’t have to do with his grandiosity then it might fit better in antisocial. But it’s all revolving around his grandiosity and preoccupation with unlimited success which is narcissism. A psychopath doesn’t murder or destroy people to feed their preoccupation with unlimited success; they do it because they enjoy it and it’s usually impulsive.
Bird, focusing on whether someone is impulsive or not, antisocial or Narcissistic or not I think is missing the point. Let’s quit calling them Sociopaths, or psychopaths, or ASPD, or narcissistic or impulsive or vengeful, let’s just call them ONE WORD that everyone can agree on, TOXIC would be a good one, or you can make one up, what the label is, really in the end doesn’t matter. The DSM iV or V is just a “consensus” (and many agree a POOR CONSENSUS at that) of terms to describe and define people with this or that disorder. The DSM is NOT THE BIBLE….and it is ever changing.
So focusing on the “exact definition” of this or that disorder is missing the point of what these people are….TOXIC, DESTRUCTIVE, ABUSIVE, HATEFUL, DISHONEST and the list goes on.
Once we see any of the red flags
http://www.lovefraud.com/blog/2010/04/12/10-signs-that-youre-dating-a-sociopath/
1. Charisma and charm. They’re smooth talkers, always have an answer, never miss a beat. They seem to be very exciting.
2. Enormous ego. They act like the smartest, richest or most successful people around. They may actually come out and tell you that.
3. Overly attentive. They call, text and e-mail constantly. They want to be with you every moment. They resent time you spend with your family and friends.
4. Jekyll and Hyde personality. One minute they love you; the next minute they hate you. Their personality changes like flipping a switch.
5. Blame others. Nothing is ever their fault. They always have an excuse. Someone else causes their problems.
6. Lies and gaps in the story. You ask questions, and the answers are vague. They tell stupid lies. They tell outrageous lies. They lie when they’d make out better telling the truth.
7. Intense eye contact. Call it the predatory stare. If you get a chill down your spine when they look at you, pay attention.
8. Move fast. They quickly proclaim that you’re their true love and soul mate. They want to move in together or get married quickly.
9. Pity play. They appeal to your sympathy. They want you to feel sorry for their abusive childhood, psychotic ex, incurable disease or financial setbacks.
10. Sexual magnetism. If you feel intense attraction, if your physical relationship is unbelievable, it may be their excess testosterone
These are “symptoms” or “signs” of what these people display in order to manipulate others…not just in romantic relationships but in lots of different kinds of relationships.
We first start out learning about them, learning how they behave, and what the RED FLAGS are, and then we have to learn about OURSELVES and why we were pulled into their webs…or why we are pulled into the webs of more than one psychopath. It starts out we learn about THEM but ends up we learn about ourselves.
I learned that I fall for the pity ploy or the love bomb pretty consistently, so I try to step back when I start feeling pity and wanting to reach out and “help” someone, especially when that help consists of doing something for someone that by rights they should do for themselves. I cannot rescue the world though I would like to. LOL I also have to be wary if someone is love bombing me and telling me how special I am. Because I KNOW I’m special so if someone recognizes this, then they must be too, right? LOL 🙂
I also was trained as a child that it is my responsibility to be in charge of the happiness of the family and if anyone in the family is unhappy it is my fault. I realize as an adult that this is NOT TRUE, but my “inner child” still tries to function with this demand…and I have to tell her that she is NOT responsible for the happiness of everyone. She doesn’t believe me sometimes, but I am making progress with her.
A lot of the misery in my life has been brought on by others, but a great deal of it I ALLOWED THEM TO DO to me….repeatedly…so I am responsible for allowing that, and I accept that, and I refuse to allow anyone else to abuse me. I am taking that responsibility for myself. It doesn’t matter if the person who tries to abuse me is a P or just a jerk wad, I am not going to allow it. As soon as I spot the RED FLAGS I am going to do what has to be done to protect myself and stop any abuse of others if I can, but at the least, I will walk away from that person.
Right. You see the red flag and go. But then what? If I let go of the definitions then I have to move on. I have to let go of him. And I miss him. And it’s hard to let go. Why did he lie?? Now I have no choice but to walk away. He gave me no choice.
Bird,
then you learn.
You learn why you were vulnerable. It’s not about him after all. It was about you. That’s where the power is. Vulnerability and humility are the keys to learning how to protect ourselves.
I must be blind to red flags. Redflag people are clever, string you along then BOOM ~! they look like a porcupine on fire. Im not really surprised tho, people like me seem to attract redflag people. I think I will move to the moon and dance.
Dear Sweet Bird, I hear your pain….the disappointment. I wish I could tell you “why” he lied…WHY did my bright, charming, super intelligent son start to be a thug and a thief at 15 when he could have been a brilliant scientist, preacher, teacher, astronaut, pilot, scuba diver, world traveler, ANYTHING he wanted to be and he wanted to be a THUG WHY????? What did he get out of stealing? Why was that more exciting than climbing mountains, or jumping out of an airplane? My husband would have taught him to fly, we had a plane, he could have done anything he wanted to. And he wanted to be a THUG? He had scholarships by the ton, could have gone to ANY university in the US he wanted to and he drops out of high school to rob houses? WHY????? Dear God WHY????
And Dear sweet Bird, to this day I don’t completely know the answer? I wish I did. I wish I had an absolute answer but all I can say is THAT WAS HIS CHOICE. It was what he wanted.
It tore my heart out, and I am sure that your heart is torn out too. When I realized that the man I had fallen for after my husband died was a fake, just wanting a “respectable wife” to cheat on I was devastated and I kept asking WHY????. The answer is still the same, he CHOSE to. He didn’t value what I valued or want what I wanted.
I wanted him to love me, I wanted to love him. He couldn’t love. Just as my son can’t love.
It isn’t that they couldn’t love ME, they couldn’t love ANYONE.
I have learned though that I am OK without a man to love me, and I would like a man to love me, but I don’t NEED a man to love me to be okay. I’ve also learned that my life’s happiness doesn’t depend on my son’s success in life or lack of it. I just wish e would leave me alone, but he won’t do that so I have to protect myself…keep him in prison if I can, and if he gets out be ready to defend myself, and yes, I can and will if I am pushed to it.
You are a young smart beautiful woman, Bird, and you deserve to be loved by a LOVING MAN–one who can love the Baby Birdie and be a father to him (I am SO glad that the sperm donor is leaving you alone) and the day will come I imagine that you will find that LUCKY man, Bird…but before you can find him, you have to FIND YOURSELF. Learn to SET BOUNDARIES and be willing to RUN (or WALK) away at the first red flag of dishonesty or meanness that someone waves in your face. And hold your head up and NOT LOOK BACK.
People will treat you the way you DEMAND that they treat you and I have found that I have thinned out my rolodex a BUNCH and torn out the pages for those people who are dishonest and don’t value my friendship.
A couple of years ago a woman that I loved like a sister, who had been my best friend for 30 + years and I split the blanket. It hurt, but I could no longer allow anyone to use or abuse me. I realize that she is herself an abused woman. Believe it or not I knew her all these years and didn’t realize how abusive her husband was until he retired. He had traveled and I really didn’t know him. But I can cherish the good times she and I had, she was a good friend, but she is no longer able to be a good friend.
But I am no longer able to overlook abusive behavior from anyone no matter WHY they abuse me.
I still have my moments, Bird, and lately times have been tough for me with my son’s upcoming parole hearing, and I’ve had to BOINK myself on the head and STOP abusing myself, stop stressing myself and get back on the road to healing. It is about ME not about him, and what label I stick on him or what I think is the reason WHY he is what he is doesn’t matter any more, what MATTERS IS ME, taking care of me. So pick yourself up, Bird, and work on YOU, you did GOOD when you figured out what he is and went NC, and you know already HOW IMPORTANT NC is, and you know that the PAIN WILL PASS.
He didn’t get a “virgin” he got a woman who already had survived a psychopathic relationshit, and who knows what a psychopath is, so quit being being OCD about the label, and work on taking care of YOU. (((Hugs))) and give my Baby Birdie a big hug from his Aunty Oxy!
Bird, learning to identify “Red Flags” is just the beginning of learning how to construct strong boundaries for EVERYone, not just romantic potentials.
“Then what?” was the question with regard to identifying the “Red Flags,” and Skylar & OxD put it out there: we learn about US and our vulnerabilities and strengths. We learn WHY we were easily targeted and work on those issues.
For me, it required me to engage in strong counseling therapy. Sure, the counselor validated that I had been married to a spath, but that wasn’t really what I needed. I already “knew” that he was spath. What I needed was to understand why I felt guilty for what HE had done to me. And, this took some intensive, painful, hard work.
Recovering from the carnages of a socipathic entanglement is like NO OTHER TRAUMA. Human beings are equipped to process grievous losses of friends and family members, natural disasters, and even random acts of violence. Usually, there is something that we can “see” that clearly caused the trauma: my father suffered a cardiac arrest; the flood washed my home away; or, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and robbed at gunpoint. There is nothing rational that “explains” our experiences with a sociopathic entanglement. We are simply NOT equipped to process these types of experiences, on our own.
Too many times, we get caught up in the tail-chasing activity of attempting to explain what he/she is, did, etc. Ultimately, does it really matter what the label is? If you could be given a succinct diagnosis for the spath, what would that do for you? You can’t fix the spath. You can’t help the spath. You can’t make the spath “feel” accountable for what he’s done to you. You can ONLY work on your own core issues to build strong boundaries and recover.
Brightest blessings
I totally second what Truthy said to Bird…it IS about US and our boundaries. There is NOT SQUAT that we can do for them, but we MUST take care of ourselves and realize that THEIR problems are NOT OUR problems….unless we allow it. And we must never ever allow someone to use and abuse us just because we love them….or share DNA with them. There is NEVER any reason to voluntarily associate with anyone who is abusive. If they have a gun pointed at your head, say and do whatever they want you to, but otherwise, WALK AWAY you are not leaving anything valuable behind.
We may be disappointed that what we thought was a gold ingot was simply a painted rock, but it was fool’s gold not the real stuff and the only way we become fools is to KNOWINGLY stay with the fake.
So, Bird, you DID WELL, you recognized the fake and you walked away, the first TWO BIG STEPS …you know what a psychopath is, and you did the real learning back when you were preg with the baby Birdie, and so NOW is the time to learn about BIRD, and to help comfort her from the repeated disappointment in someone else, and to teach her that she is OK by herself. It is normal and natural to want a partner and you deserve one, but by setting boundaries you can weed out the creeps, jerks, and the psychopaths.
Don’t know if you remember Matt, the attorney here.
He made a liist of things his next partner had to have it was cute it was the 4 “tions”
First was HABITA-TION ( In other words a place of their own
Second was TRANSPORTA-TION (a car of some sort)
Third was EDUCA-TION (noot be a third grade drop oout)
And I never can remember the 4th one, but it essentially said A JOB!
Matt now is going on te 2nd year or so of a stable relationship with a healthy and successful partner.
I made a list of things that I WILL NOT TOLERATE
1. Dishonesty of any kind–telling me a lie will cost someone
2. Irresponsibility of any ( failure to meet obligations, do what they say they will do, drive while drinking, driving without automobile insurance, anything IRRESPONSIBLE. Failing too take responsibility for bad behavior, and unwillingness to apologize and change their ways when wrong.
3. Meanness–hateful or spiteful in any way, rude to a waiter would be an example, or beating a child or a dog, speaking rudely to a child that was misbehaving rather than appropriate discipline
And so on.
I looked at what I would not tolerate in people around me, and I thought of examples from the past where I had allowed people to lie to me, steal from me, speak hatefully to me, and I still called them “friends” and still gave them more opportunity to continue their bad behavior.
I could stand up to strangers, but “friends” and “family” got a free ride at treating me any way they chose. No more. No one is going to respect me if I don’t respect myself.
That doesn’t mean I expect every friend or family member to be perfect, but I do expect them to accept responsibility for their behavior and if they behave poorly I expect an apology, and a CHANGE in behavior. Trust is no longer freely given to anyone but must be EARNED and if lost, is difficult to restore.
Bird you’re in pain right now my dear from the betrayal (again) of someone you wanted to love, but who did not deserve your love or trust, but you are a lot further down the road this time and your recovery is gonna be about YOU this time, not them.