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.
Bird,
It was ALWAYS the plan, NOT to show up for the event/wedding/vacation or whatever. That WAS the plan, to make YOU feel like crap because your hopes were dashed. This may seem unreal to you but that’s because YOU don’t think like they do. They LOVE watching us get excited about something and then fall into the depths of despair when the rug is pulled out from our plans. It’s part of the roller coaster ride they put us on. The intent, whether conscious or subconscious is to sabotage our self-confidence. When we plan and the plan doesn’t work out, it sabotages our faith that we CAN plan. When this happens over and over and over, for 25 YEARS, you just stop planning.
Bird, I agree with you on that “lack of planning”—yet there are some who can pull off the LONG CON JOB, look at Bernie Madoff and his brother and I am sure others in that conspiracy…they did it well and almost pulled it off forever, though Ponzi schemes have been well known for a long time.
My son Patrick’s ability to “plan” in his criminal activities is LAUGHABLE if they weren’t so serious. EVERY criminal thing he has ever done was BOUND to BE CAUGHT….was NO WAY he could have gotten away with it. He DID, I admit rob a few houses he got away with, but every BIG criminal thing and 99.9% of even the small things were BOUND TO FAIL. Yet, my son has an I! in the top half of the top percentile, he is smarter than 99.5% of all the people in the world and yet…”DUMBER” than the dumbest criminal still on the street. Partly I think because he does not GET IT that the rest of the world REALLY thinks what he is doing is so bad. (even murder) and he is not afraid of prison any more, I’m not sure he was ever really afraid of prison. It is a big GAME to him of “out smart the guardS” and he does do so once in a while so he “scores” and on the times he loses and gets caught he does NOT subtact a score, so he only adds uup the times he “wins” and doesn’t give the guards a score when they win so he FEELS LIKE A WINNER even if the score is Patrick 1 and guards 100, as long as he never gives them a score when they win it is always Patrick 1 and Guards ZERO.
I should have a bumper sticker that says “My son is an honor student at the state prison”
Ox I agree totally that it’s on a continuum; no doubt about that. Skylar I disagree that not showing up was part of the plan. Failure to plan is in the definition to get a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. I think that decision to not show up was spontaneous. Did they take pleasure watching you crumble? Probably. And maybe that was their motivation for spontaneously not showing; but either way it was most likely an impulsive act.
I think their impulsive nature is one of the scariest things about them, because there is no way to predict their behavior; they can snap at anytime.
Oxy,
I’m not sure that your son isn’t planning things out exactly as he wants them. It appears to me that his main plan is to make you miserable. Think about it. What is the ONE thing you loved most, wanted most, valued most in your life?
HIM. He was the brightest hope you had. He was so smart and lovable. What would be the best way to ruin that? Die? Nah, where’s the fun in that? The worst thing he could do is exactly what he did: go to prison for murder and make you hate and fear him.
He is intent on controlling you by controlling your emotions.
If you read Dr. Hervey Cleckley’s “Mask of Sanity” you will notice this pattern over and over. These patients would utterly convince Cleckley that they “got it”, they were ready to be released. Almost as soon as they had a foot out the door they were doing outrageous things, being arrested and brought right back to Cleckley.
What I noticed is that the reason they kept coming back was because they had at least one family member who was taking responsibility so they wouldn’t go to jail. Cleckley, himself, was obviously emotionally invested in their well-being. Their behavior was meant to keep him on the roller coaster, of hope and dashed hopes. His self-esteem was wrapped up in succeeding with these patients and THAT is why he never would. He became part of their game.
The only way out is to bow out of the game, or at least have your emotions bow out. Not sure how to do that, though. We’re only human – unlike the spaths. At the very least, we can make them think that we’ve stopped investing emotions into them.
Bird,
the reason that is part of the diagnosis for ASPD is because this research is still in it’s infancy. Researchers have anthropomorphized them. The doctors, like Cleckley, can’t fathom having goals that make no sense to themselves.
It’s like if you went to visit a tribe that uses seashells for currency and you saw them trading canoes and baskets for seashells, but refused your coins. If you didn’t understand the concept of different VALUES, then you wouldn’t understand the “insanity” of preferring shells over coins.
The doctors who study spaths, don’t understand that the only thing spaths value is OUR ATTENTION. They will do anything required including cutting off their own noses, to rent space in your head for the longest possible time. Traumatizing us, is the most effective method for doing that. Some spaths, like the school shooters, actually say that they want to go down in infamy as the worst massacre ever. This type of trauma can traumatize for generations and that’s what spaths value: our trauma.
It may appear that they are not planning for their future, but they are. They are planning for the only thing that matters to them, being remembered.
This is very interesting. Mine was constantly “making plans” for “our future” and this went as far as telling his wife and 6 year old they were going to live in russia(he never admitted my existence and I only found out wife and son lived with him and his “plan” shortly before I saw the truth ). I believe he meant to follow through on this “plan” for as long as it didnt present him with any major inconvenience (ie being taken to a divorce court and losing his flat; his child living 3000 miles away didnt bother him). When divorce was threatened he simply dropped the plan. No remorse for traumatising the child, duping me, telling his wife he was through with her. So with him, plans were always founded on disordered compulsions: eg for possibility of novel sex, fantasies of ideal love, fantasies of escape from routine and responsibility, of starting again at nearly 50 with a woman who hadn’t yet grown wise to him. All the “plans” were articulations of his disordered fantasies. He had no apparent ability to predict his wife would refuse to leave, leaving him facing the loss of his apartment if he tried to force her. No foresight, no ability to think strategically. All “plans” were just him getting short term pleasure from imagining the pleasure obtaining the fantasy would give him. Any material inconvenience threatened to result from following the plan through and he dropped it. The emotional devastation this caused is irrelevant to him. He lives in a delusional fantasy world of impulse and no conscience or empathy. I don’t think he means- ok not consciously- to intentionally disappoint, he just doesnt even acknowledge other people’s emotions. They don’t exist to him. Unless their emotions make him feel a momentary rush or a thrill. But I accept that as skylar points out it’s hard to believe in purely malicious motivations
Sky, I think in a way you are right….if I said go NORTH, Patrick would go SOUTH even if it was over a cliff. I hired a guy to work for me on the farm once when I was living in a town close by but couldn’t be up here because I was working 16-18 hours a day 6-7 days a week at my job, and the guy was a P for SURE! I found out later. I had him and his wife living up here in a trailer I furnished and all he had to do was buy the feed and put it out for the animals and check on their welfare. I checked in by phone daily…well I came up here to find the animals STARVING and he had decided he didn’t like to hear my great pyreness guardian dog bark so he had TAPED THE DOG’s MOUTH SHUT and put a chain collar on it and had an electric cord which he plugged into a socket every time the dog made a sound….I also found out he had even killed the rooster for waking him up. ….his wife was leaving him for abuse as well. That man was just like Patrick, he hated taking orders from a woman so whatever I said do, he did the opposite.
After I threw him off here and his wife left him (she had supported him for years) he ended up pushing a broom at wal mart….I loved going in there and seeing him mopping the floor, when HE thought he should have been the CEO. LOL The last time I saw him he was in terrible health, was skin and bones and I am ashamed to say I gloried in his down fall…but I just remember seeing ;my starving animals and I think KARMA IS A BIATCH.
Yea, Patrick WON by taking away my ambitions for him, by breaking my heart…but I am doing my best to have a life in spite of that loss of the child I loved. That MAN, that STRANGER in the cell, is not the baby and the child I loved, that child is GONE, is as dead as my husband. At least there is nothing else that Patrick can take UNLESS I LET HIM, and sometimes I do fail to keep my emotions in check, and when I have to have “contact” during the parole protest preparations, sometimes I let it get to me and even though I KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO, I fail in doing it…but then I get back on the horse that threw me and get back out of the hole I let myself fall into and I get on with my life, leaving him in his cell to plot and plan…but HE IS IN THE CELL, and those that support him, which at this point is no one but my egg donor and her deluded group of old ladies and her “church” buddies…can’t take away my peace if I DO NOT ALLOW IT.
Right now I am taking care of myself, recovering from the physical and emotional turmoil I have let myself get sucked into, and puttiing my foot back into the stirup ready to get back on the horse of life and ride.
What I meant was, negative emotions (sadness, fear, anger, pain, trauma) seemed to mean absolutely nothing to him, he reacted with blankness withdrawal or minor irritation. Any negative emotion would be punished : he’d say very coldly “there is no need to be dramatic” “I like you CALM” “I do not like hysterical women” but a positive emotion, any positive validation he sucked up like Dracula and the rule was: more validating blood, no negativity or criticism of any kind or look out
Bird,
What you explained about being faithful in the present but if months down the road, there is an opportunity to cheat, they will…. makes sense to me.
I did have the feeling with my spath, like it was 50 (or thousands)First Dates. He was a GREAT first date. Just didn’t understand why the intimacy in our relationship never deepened. And I was told I was paranoid b/c I always had the feeling he was about to walk out on me. I was told it was b/c I had abandonment issues from my bad childhood. So I WANTED to BELIEVE it was ME b/c I was willing to do anything to fix me. I WANTED to be wrong, to believe he would never walk out. But… will also say I would have staked my LIFE on my belief that he would never cheat. His disdain for cheaters was ENORMOUS. Turns out, he just had a different definition. “It’s NOT cheating if HE did not initiate the affair.” He was always changing the defintions of words. sigh.