Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

psychopaths who are also “anti-socials”, but there seem to be

far more of them that would never be classified as anti-social or

sociopathic! In other words, they can be doctors, lawyers,

judges, policemen, congressmen, presidents of corporations

that rob from the poor to give to the rich, and even presidents.

In a recent paper, it is suggested that psychopathy may exist

in ordinary society in even greater numbers than anyone has

thus far considered:

Psychopathy, as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941),

is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather en-

compasses such personality characteristics as manipulative-

ness, insincerity, egocentricity, and lack of guilt - characteris-

tics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents,

bosses, attorneys, politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few.

(Bursten, 1973; Stewart, 1991). Our own examination of the

prevalence of psychopathy within a university population sug-

2 Stout, Martha: The Sociopath Next Door, Broadway. 2005

16

EDITOR’S PREFACE

gested that perhaps 5% or more of this sample might be

deemed psychopathic, although the vast majority of those will

be male (more than 1/10 males versus approximately 1/100

females).

As such, psychopathy may be characterized ... as involving

a tendency towards both dominance and coldness. Wiggins

(1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings... indicates

that such individuals are prone to anger and irritation and are

willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative,

cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation-seeking, Machiavellian,

vindictive, and out for their own gain. With respect to their

patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute

love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly

worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to

others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. This char-

acterization is clearly consistent with the essence of psychopa-

thy as commonly described.

The present investigation sought to answer some basic

questions regarding the construct of psychopathy in non foren-

sic settings... In so doing we have returned to Cleckley’s

(1941) original emphasis on psychopathy as a personality style

not only among criminals, but also among successful indi-

viduals within the community.

What is clear from our findings is that (a) psychopathy

measures have converged on a prototype of psychopathy that

involves a combination of dominant and cold interpersonal

characteristics; (b) psychopathy does occur in the community

and at what might be a higher than expected rate; and (c) psy-

chopathy appears to have little overlap with personality disor-

ders aside from Antisocial Personality Disorder. ...

Clearly, where much more work is needed is in under-

standing what factors differentiate the abiding (although per-

haps not moral-abiding) psychopath from the law-breaking

psychopath; such research surely needs to make greater use of

non forensic samples than has been customary in the past.3

!obaczewski discusses the fact that there are different types

of psychopaths. One type, in particular, is the most deadly of

3 Salekin, Trobst, Krioukova: (2001) “Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a

Community Sample: A Nomological Net Approach” in Journal of Personal-

ity Disorders, 15(5), 425-441.

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY

17

all: the Essential Psychopath. He doesn’t give us a “checklist”

but rather discusses what is inside the psychopath. His descrip-

tion meshes very well with items in the paper quoted above.

Martha Stout also discusses the fact that psychopaths, like

anyone else, are born with different basic likes and dislikes and

desires, which is why some of them are doctors and presidents

and others are petty thieves or rapists.

“Likeable”, “Charming”, “Intelligent”, “Alert”, “Impres-

sive”, “Confidence-inspiring,” and “A great success with the

ladies”. This is how Hervey Cleckley described most of his

subjects in The Mask of Sanity. It seems that, in spite of the fact

that their actions prove them to be “irresponsible” and “self-

destructive”, psychopaths seem to have in abundance the very

traits most desired by normal persons. The smooth self-

assurance acts as an almost supernatural magnet to normal

people who have to read self-help books or go to counseling to

be able to interact with others in an untroubled way. The psy-

chopath, on the contrary, never has any neuroses, no self-

doubts, never experiences angst, and is what “normal” people

seek to be. What’s more, even if they aren’t that attractive, they

are “babe magnets”.

Cleckley's seminal hypothesis is that the psychopath suffers

from profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels

anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind.

He is able to do whatever he wants, based on whatever whim

strikes him, because consequences that would fill the ordinary