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.
Tea Light:
I really have no doubt about the hypnotism. I truly think that’s what happened to me and the No Contact is the only way to break that addiction from the hypnosis. It’s been awful.
By the way, sorry I still didn’t tell my story. It’s so long…I have to be in the right frame of mind to type it all.
Lou, whenever and only if you feel like it would be useful to you, I’d be happy to read you. Hang in there, day by day, hour by hour. x
It’s not that they NEED help, they just like to have servants.
I’ve observed this in spaths over and over, not just in men.
The crazy husband stealing spath, who is a bank manager, told me that she doesn’t like to do things for herself, she likes other people to do them for her. She said she didn’t know quickbooks so she needed me to help her do the bookkeeping for the neighborhood association. She IS the treasurer AND a bank manager.
My spath brother watched my elderly parents, in their 70’s, labor in the hot sun last August, as they put in a brick patio BY THEMSELVES. He would walk by, though he lives there RENT FREE, FREE CABLE AND FREE INTERNET. The neighbors were aghast to see how hard they work, so one of the guys came to help. Then he stopped. Later he told them that my spath sister had told him NOT to help them!
My spath wouldn’t help me build a room in the upstairs loft. I had to drag drywall up a flight of stairs ALONE. Later, when he needed help with something on his computer, I didn’t help him. He had the audacity to say, “When someone is good at something, they should help out and do it for someone who isn’t good at it.” I replied, “It’s good for someone who can’t do it, to learn how to do it.”
This love of watching others do labor goes as far as loving to watch their wives exercise their butts off to look good FOR THEM, while they do nothing strenuous at all.
Before I learned about spaths, all this behavior was going on right under my nose and I just had no idea, that there were people who love seeing others labor. But I should have known because in the old days, they were called SLAVE OWNERS, the ultimate spath.
Louise, there are general continuums, but nothing is written in stone about disordered people. There are patterns of behaviors that are glaring to the “educated” person – that would be someone who has experienced spath entanglements and are in recovery.
This is where the “professionals” are failing so abysmally – they are placing specifics on symptoms, but not even considering the peripheral damages that the disordered create.
With the second exspath, “impulsivity” could easily have been viewed as his just being “spontaneous.” It would depend upon whom you asked whether it was one or the other. He was also adept at planning as long as those plans were based specifically upon what HE wanted. Vacations, spending, etc., were ALL planned exceedingly well by him when it would benefit him, solely.
For instance, he was able to “plan” groundwork to deceive me, live a compartmentalized deviant lifestyle, relieve me of nearly 300K, and either kill me off (by his own hand, or by proxy) and skip away from the marriage without having suffered anything more than the cost of burying me. In fact, he was planning future “vacations” that would have had him “hiking” some trail with me “meeting” him at various points along the way. Of course, he would have been hiking with his mistress, whomever that would have been at the time, but he had every detail ironed out down to the penny and mile.
Although they all share the same behaviors – bait, lure, snag, abuse, discard, they aren’t all created from the same pattern, if that makes any sense.
Hope that clarifies, to some degree. 😉
Brightest blessings
Skylar, 100% spot-on. Having others “do their bidding” relieves them of responsibility and accountability. “I never DID that,” is a common warcry among these parasites.
Sky, yep. He actually said that to me in the last lovebombing phone call I took on 29 Dec. ”Oh darling blah blah I think all the time of our moments together your face your expressions blah blah HOW I LOVE TO WATCH YOU WORK IN THE KITCHEN” . Really you’ve got to laugh.
TeaLight, this may offer you some encouragement because I never believed that it would happen to me, personally, but it DID.
At some point, after being N/C long enough, spath machinations actually become a source of morbid hilarity – I mean that it’s actually laughable after some good recovery.
Brightest blessings
Truthy, that’s why LF helps me so much – the predictability of these people, who walk around in this delusional state that they are so unique, so special, and I come here and others are just basically confirming for me my abuser is cookie cut from the same batch of psycho dough as thousands of others. Lol!
Let me clarify further; inability to plan and impusivity involves not being able to look at the future. They can do things and complete tasks because their limbic system is functioning properly. They can plan a wedding in the present time if that is what they want to do in the present; they can even get the catering and the band together. They can complete tasks. But does this mean the sociopath will be there at the wedding in 6 months? It’s a toss up, because they can’t plan that far in advance with a frontal lobe disorder. They can say they will marry you and be faithful in the present, but if months down the road they have the opportunity to cheat and they want to; then they will. They live in the moment and have a difficult planning the future with any accuracy. If they say they aren’t cheating on you when they are standing in front of you, they aren’t at that moment. Part of the reason they are so devistating to our lives is that we make major life plans with them only to leave us high and dry; and it’s hard to recover from. Why do they do this? Because they are spontaneous and they can’t plan properly. But we can and it really messes us up when they change their plan last minute; or change their mind; or don’t do what was apart of the plan. We are left wondering why they got the band and caterer, why did they ask for your hand, why did they act excited if they had no intention to show up at the wedding; well guess what, something else came up in the present, and they made different plans.
Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen’s book about empathy being like most things, being “measured” on a BELL CURVE _/\_ with most being in the middle, and a few toward the left end (zero) and a few toward the right end (too much) is the same as anything being measured in humans, IQ, height, etc.
Autistic people tend to be toward the left side of the curve, toward zero empathy, and psychopaths as well, but Baron-Cohen shows that while the AUTISTIC people may have little or no empathy, they do not try to HURT YOU, so he labels that Zero+ and the psychopath he labels zero NEGATIVE because with their lack of empathy they also ENJOY hurting you.
All the P traits, whether it is empathy, compassion, impulsivity, narcissism, etc can be measured on a bell curve at some level, so a person who is a P can have more or less empathy than another, more or less compassion, impulsivity etc so even though there is a PATTERN of high in P traits, it may vary from person to person to SOME EXTENT. It takes the WHOLE picture to show the psychopath for what s/he is. Plus, some are also bi-polar and also ADHD so add in those problems of mania, or depression and the ADHD, and you have some other aspects as well. Then if you factor in the culture and environmental aspects of violence, or the level of IQ of the psychopath. They are not specifically smarter or dumber than average, so there are some that are retarded, and some that are geniuses and the majority in the “normal” (average) range in the middle.
Just as there are some things in common with us (victims) there are also some things in common with them, but there is still a VARIETY in us all, and in them as well.