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.
Louise,
I can’t even describe how calm he was. The only time he displayed emotion was when he was manipulating. I get that now, but I didn’t then. He could charm, cry or rage, but it was an act. The only “emotions” he was ever feeling was a sense of glee when he conned and a cold rage he felt when he was killing or planning to kill.
I think that yours was pretending to be annoyed at people taking care of him. Spaths all love it when they get attention. Any kind of attention will do. But I think they like mothering the most, because they hate their mothers and a woman who mothers makes a perfect victim.
Some spaths can play cool for a while, but the anxiety gets to them and they display tics. Those are probably more like N’s, but it is a spectrum/continuum. Either way, they are all toxic and should be kept behind glass where they can’t be fed anything except their zoo rations.
Alternatively, Lesions on the limbic system is related to Alzheimer’s. So because the limbic system is functioning in psychos, they can function in normal life and pretty much go unnoticed except for a few who get to know them well. Frontal lobe disorders can cause a person to have anxiety.
skylar
mine was a master chess player. and he was contemptuous of people who were impulsive. to not maintain control was a sign of inferiority in my spaths opinon. i concluded of him that he was able to fool SOME of the people ALL of the time, and ALL of the people some of the time. he also runs scams that are decades old. people die and still hadn’t figured out they were scammed. i’d say i knew more about him than anyone b/c i was the ONLY person in his life 24/7 for over 20 years, but even that, i didn’t know ALL of him, not at all. learned all i ever wanted to know though, there at the end. 🙁
Bird, some spaths have an inordinate ability to plan, as the exspath in my situation did. He planned and executed a very long-con, and was finally in preparations to cause my untimely demise (either by deliberate action, or by proxy) when I finally discovered what I had been living with for over 14 years.
Impulsivity can be a “Red Flag,” but it can be mistaken for spontenaety, as well, as in my situation.
Quite frankly, any little thing that puts me “off my feed,” so to speak, is a “Red Flag” for me. Whether a person is spath or just a jerk had no bearing on their level of toxicity for me, personally. I just no longer tolerate toxicity, on any level.
KatyDid, we never really “knew” who these people truly were, and even identifying WHAT they are only gives us every reason to protect ourselves from their machinations.
If someone had told me what the exspath was 18 months ago, I would have responded that they were insane – his facade was THAT clever. Once I discovered what he really was, there was no discussion about what he was, or wasn’t. At that point, it was just a matter of “How Do I Divorce This Thing?”
Brightest blessings
Skylar, YES!!!! 100% spot-on! The exspath despises his mother, and I played the part of “nurturer” to a TEE. And, he was able to recognize this desire to nurture and exploit it to the Nth degree. In fact, he would refuse to take the lead in any important things (like, applying for a mortgage) and always would say (and, I quote), “You’re the ‘Mama,’ and that’s YOUR job.” When there was any “confrontation” with utility providers or financial issues that needed to be resolved, he neatly and cleanly put the responsibility in my lap with a disingenuine smile and assertion that I had the ability to deal with the issue.
Yes, the instinct or desire to nurture can be a very, very powerful exploitation. EUGH…..
Brightest blessings
Louise, no such thing as a “mild” spath, sweetie. Some just go to greater lengths to suit their needs. A lack of remorse and empathy is a lack of remorse and empathy.
🙂
Brightest blessings
Bird , you said ”they really can’t get anything done unless they have considerable help; they know this and they manipulate for it. I believe their difficulty in planning contributes to their lying, they tell lies even when there is a large chance they will get caught”
This resonates with my knowledge of my abuser; I couldn’t figure out if his attitutes to women were dependency of some kind due to a genuine inability to function in terms of cooking and cleaning .
Now we all know many men will try that game to manipulate into not doing their share but with him , it seemed more pathological.
He wants extreme submission in a woman and very strict gender division of roles in the home. He refuses – simply refuses – to cook meals for himself. He told me he has lived that way all his life. His first girlfriend would cook for him when he was a student and if she was away, he ate in the canteen.
His wives were and are compelled to cook him lunch and dinner, one meal must contain meat. His mother lives two minutes away from him and his wife. When his wife escapes to her country for holidays with their son, to visit her parents, he eats at his mother’s EVERY day that she is away. TWICE a day.
He tried this with me the first week I spent with him on a holiday in France. He started telling me all this – that he expected this from me when we lived together. ( I still beleived at that point he was seperated). I thought he was joking and teased him. He became very agitated, it was the first time his mask really fell . It was quite a shock. ”I MAKE BREAKFAST ONLY ” he said angrily, as if I was stupid not to ”get it”.
I became ill that week due to the assaults and the realisation I was alone with a very sick man. My mind was in total turmoil and panic. I was stunned, basically. One night I said I didn’t have any appetite and needed to go and lie down. There were plenty of things to eat in the fridge plus basic meals he could have made like spaghetti.
Instead, he elected to eat a strawberry tart some chocolate biscuits which he insisted on in the supermarket – a brand aimed at kids, like a treat for French kids after school – and a yoghurt. And he left all his mess on the table, for me to clear up in the morning, a huge ”you don’t get it do you? You mother me, I cannot take care of myself, if you don’t cook me a meal I am going to eat cake and chocolate and make a mess like a child”.
This man is 49.
Anyway my point is that as Bird suggests, I began to wonder if his disorder makes him genuinely unable to cope without very high levels of support from women. Maybe that inability is pathological, rather than a factual inability, but still. It ran very very deep in him. And explains some of his infidelity. There must always be a back up, in case the encumbant wife decides enough and throws in the towel / escapes. His mother is in her late 60’s, I think I was ”back up”.
Louise, the hypnotism resonates…I had this man’s voice in my head every minute of the day, due to the ceaseless phoning of me – I took out an international calls plan with my phone provider about two months in, thinking we’d talk maybe two or three times a week in addition to emails. The plan cost me relatively little and enabled him to call me at no charge up to 50 hours per month. I remember laughly saying when I explaioned the plan to him, as if we are going to talk for 50 hours! . Well, he started ringing me three or four times a day.
In Aug, Sept, Oct I received more than 60 hours a month of calls from him. It was relentless. I became programmed to go into a strange submissive obediant state when I heard his voice. I lost my mind listening to that damned voice hour after hour day after day it never left my mind
Addon ….Just thinking about some very creepy man I read about in a magasine who writes books on how to hypnotise women into having sex – he runs popular workshops on this. Also thinking about NeuroLinguistic Programming, I knew some women at work who attended a course on this and they got very , almost cultishly into it; it seemed to me the man running it was manipulating them financially and possibly sexually using what seemed to me like hypnotism
Truthspeak:
Really? I thought there were continuums in these disorders?
skylar:
I think you are exactly right about him pretending to be annoyed at people trying to take care of him. He loved it.