youmightfindyourself:

Author of book on psychopaths shares reader’s email.

message: Dear Jon,

I just saw your interview on Australia’s ABC 7:30 report on ‘The Psychopath Test’ and wanted to share my experience. I hope that it can remain confidential for the time being, seeing as it is quite personal. 

But, when I was 19 (I’m 26-27 now) I went into long-term therapy - for psychopathy. 

My case was rather unusual in that I self-referred. The mental health agency had not had a walk-in of this kind before. In the lead up, I had found myself becoming overwhelmed with a predatorial instinct that I could not shake - I’d sit, watching crowds of people go by, driven to mania by what I saw as their limitless inferiorities. Plans were set that, once enacted, would be very difficult to walk back from.

Nevertheless, the decision to go to therapy was one I had taken with some considerable agony, given that I saw this as putting myself ‘on the radar’ so to speak, and thus making it considerably more difficult to ‘act out my nature’ as I saw it. 

I undertook a lengthy psychological examination, and the psychiatrist conducting it wrote some pretty stark conclusions devoid of any optimistic prognosis. 

My initial forays into therapy did not go well. Overwhelmed with mistrust, concerned at being maniuplated, and uncomfortable with the idea of being ‘managed’ rather than ‘cured’, I left on multiple occassions for some periods of time. 

After chewing through several therapists, the director of the agency finally took me on herself, and to our mutual surprise we got along extremely well. 

To make a long story short, after years of setbacks, frustrations, resentments and suspicion, I began to make considerable progress. 

Four years later, with sessions no less frequent than once or twice a week, I came out of therapy unrecognizable from when I went into it. 

Yes thearapy was transformative, though it is possible to overstate its impacts. I will always see the world through different lenses to much of the rest of the world. My emotional reactions are different, my endowments are impressive in some respects, not so in others, much like other people. 

It is also the case that, being ‘normal’ takes a degree of energy and conscious thought that is instinctive for most, but to me is a significant expenditure of energy. I think it analogous to speaking a second language. That is not to say I am being false or obfuscating, merely that I will always expose some eccentric traits. 

So why am I writing all this to you?

Well, from someone who is both psychopathic and treated, there are many fallacies about psychopaths with which I am deeply cynical. Unfortunately psychopaths themselves do themselves no favors, as the label given to them plays into their ego over generously - ‘If we are born that way’ psychopaths reason, ‘then it is not wrong for us to be as we are, indeed we are the pinnacle of the human condition, something other people demonize merely to explain their fitful fears’. 

We are neither the cartoon evil serial killers, nor the ‘its your boss’ CEO’s always chasing profit at the expense of everyone else. While we are both of those things, it is a sad caricature of itself. 

We continue be to characterized that way, by media, by literature, and by ourselves, yet the whole thing is a sham. 

The truth is much, much more complex, and in my view, interesting.

Psychopaths are just people. You are right to say that psychopaths hate weakness, they will attempt to conceal anything that might present as a vulnerability. The test of their self-superiority is their ability to rapidly find weaknesses in others, and to exploit it to its fullest potential. 

But that is not to say that this aspect of a psychopaths world view cannot be modified. These days I see weaknesses and vulnerabilities as simple facts - a facet of the human condition and the frailties and imperfections inheritent in being human.

At the same time it is true that my feelings and reactions to those around me are different - not necessarily retarded - just different. It is the image of psychopaths as something not quite human, along with espersions as to their natures, that prevent this from being identified. 

So how to explain these ‘different’ feelings?

Well, lets look at what (bright) psychopaths are naturally quite exceptional at… We are good at identifying, very rapidly, extreme traits of those around us which allows us to discern vulnerabilities, frailties, and mental conditions. It also makes psychopaths supreme manipulators, for they can mimick human emotions they do not feel, play on these emotions and extract concessions. 

But what are these traits really? - Stripped of its pejorative adjectives and mean application, it is a highly trained perception, ability to adapt, and a lack of judgment borne of pragmatic and flexible moral reasoning. 

What I’m saying here is that although those traits can very easily (even instinctively) lead to dangerous levels of manipulation, they do not have to. 

These days I enjoy a reputation of being someone of intense understanding and observation with a keen strategic instinct. I know where those traits come from, yet I have made the conscious choice to use them for the betterment of friends, aquaintences, and society. People confide in me extraordinary things because they know, no matter what, I will not be judging them.

I do so because I know I have that choice. After years of therapy I am well equipped to act on it, and my keen perception is now directed equally towards myself. 

Its true that I do not ‘feel’ guilt or remorse, except to the extent that it affects me directly, but I do feel other emotions, which do not have adequate words of description, but nevertheless cause me to derive satisfacton in developing interpersonal relationships, contributing to society, and being gentle as well as assertive. 

Such as statement might tempt you to say ‘well obviously you’re not a real psychopath then’. As if the definition of a psychopath is someone who exploits others for their personal power, satisfaction or gain. 

A slightly more benign (but still highly inaccurate) definition is that a psychopath is someone who feels little guilt or empathy for others. 

In the end, psychopaths need to be given that very thing everyone believes they lack for others, empathy; a willingness to understand the person, their drives, hopes, strengths and fears, along with knowledge of their own personal sadnesses and sense of inferiority…As it is, such cartoon, unchangeable, inhuman characterizations offers nothing but perpetuation of those stereotypes. 

Serial Killers & Ruthless CEOs exist - Voldemort does not. 

Thank you, 

C

My buddy sends me a lot if your stuff. Your writing is very good and emotional…80% of it is enjoyable humor…keep up the good and very unique work

youmightfindyourself:

Your latest book is about ‘clever people’ and the challenges involved in leading them. How do you define clever? 

Clever people are employees whose skills are not easily replicated and who add disproportionate value to their organizations. Often, these people are smarter than their bosses and most of them don’t really want to be ‘led’. That’s what they say, anyway; whether or not they mean it is another question. The ones we studied for our book actually needed organizations in order to express their skills and talents. For instance, if you’re a brilliant pharmaceutical researcher, you can’t produce the next great breakthrough drug on your own; you need the resources of a large pharma company and you need to work in a big, global team – typically for seven or eight years. Maybe then you’ll get to work on that breakthrough drug. We have found that many kinds of cleverness these days are organizationally dependent. My coauthor and I were interested in that sort of slightly edgy relationship that clever people have with those who employ them: they need organizations but they often don’t really want to be in them. 

Describe the rise of what you have called ‘the clever economy’.   
It is very closely related to the Knowledge Economy, which most people know about. Organizations are increasingly full of well-educated people with second or third degrees – MBAs, PhDs and so on. For our last book [Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?] we studied the BBC, Roche Pharma Company and WPP (the world’s largest marketing services agency.) What do these organizations have in common, you might ask? They’re stuffed full of clever people: the BBC is brimming with clever, creative broadcasters and media content producers and so on; Roche is full of clever pharmaceutical researchers; and WPP is full of creative and marketing geniuses. Frankly, the people most likely to ask the question posed by our last book are these clever, slightly edgy and sometimes difficult types.

Despite the fact that we predict a growing Knowledge  Economy, the field of study in terms of leadership within cleverdominated  organizations is very limited. There is plenty of  research on leadership, and lots on the Knowledge Economy,  but the two haven’t been brought together very well, and that’s  why we wrote the book. The advanced industrial economies are  unlikely to dig themselves out of their current hole by producing  more motorcars: if we’re going to dig ourselves out it will be by  getting cleverer at some of the clever stuFF  that we do. A recent  McKinsey study suggests that seven in ten new jobs generated  in the United States in the last decade were ‘clever jobs’. We used  to think that the future would be filled with McDonald’s-type  jobs – low-skill service jobs – but that’s not what is happening at  all. McKinsey defines ‘clever’ in terms of complex tasks, complex  interfaces between tasks and lots of tested skill.  

You touched on the fact that unlike artists or musicians – who  can thrive on their own – clevers actually need organizations  to thrive. Why is that?  
Typically, they need to work with other clevers in order to generate  new products and knowledge. In many cases they are  actually motivated by working with others who may be even  cleverer than they are. We talk about Google in the book. I  went to visit some of the people there at the headquarters in  California. Not surprisingly, they are hiring the brightest postdoctoral  students and researchers in the world; that’s who gets  to work at Google. And guess what the first thing they notice  when they arrive is? ‘Everyone here is cleverer than me!’ This is  motivating for them, because clevers thrive when they feel surrounded  by people just the same or even cleverer. That’s one of  the reasons they need organizations. There are also more pragmatic  reasons: they also need resources and they need  organizations as a platform to achieve recognition. I’m doing  some work with Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey (LVMH),  the world’s largest luxury goods company. One of the things  they point out is that when they’re looking at creative directors,  they’re looking for people who are not just creatively  brilliant but who want to be famous. Organizations can be a  fantastic platform for public recognition. Think of the wildlife  programs that the BBC generates, which are sold all over the  world. They’re all made down in Bristol in the west of England.  The BBC provides these people with a wonderful platform to  achieve worldwide recognition. So there are many reasons  why clevers need organizations, even though they sometimes  feel uncomfortable in them.  

You say that clever people also have “enormous destructive  potential.” How so? 
I suppose the most dramatic illustration is what recently happened  to the global economy. Many of us are asking, ‘how could  organizations that were so full of cleverness of one kind or  another have gone so horribly wrong?’ Some of the financial  service organizations, in particular, indicate the enormous  destructive potential that exists within clever individuals. If you  compared these firms to organizations that are producing, let’s  say, routinized food commodities, they can be drifting in the  wrong direction for years before they eventually get into trouble.  But clever-dominated organizations are often as good as  their last project, their last client engagement or their last hire.  They succeed fast, but they can also go wrong fast, and that  speed factor is one of the reasons why there needs to be a better  understanding of how to lead these people.

On that note, leading clevers require some non-traditional  leadership skills. Please describe a couple of them.

We have a full list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ in the book. We say things  like: Do explain and persuade rather than tell people what to  do; do use your expertise rather than rely on the hierarchy;  do encourage failure to maximize learning. Don’t train. Now  some people may think, ‘What, don’t train?’ What we mean is  that a lot of clever people regard training programs as a kind of  death. For example, with lawyers and doctors, if you mention a  leadership training program they’ll go to sleep straight  away. So do provide opportunities for clevers to learn within  what they’re doing, and do give them recognition, but don’t try  to train them.  

Can an organization as a whole attain clever status?  
Definitely. We have defined three types of clever organizations,  and all are filled with clever people that are unhappy  with the status quo because they know that they, their teams  and their organization can do even better.  The first type of organization is ‘Clever Inc.’. This is the  big, fast-moving manufacturing company that must move  from the dominant economic model of the 20th century  (effi  ciency through scale) to the dominant imperative of the  21st century (the ability to leverage knowledge.) As a result,  Clever Inc. must un-learn some of its habits. Nestlé is a prime  example: it remains the world’s biggest food company but it  still has room inside of it to make breakthrough innovations  like Nespresso, which is an incredibly innovative product. It  also still has room for a brilliant mergers and acquisitions  team that continues to make creative acquisitions.  Second is ‘Clever Services’. These firms are focused on the  provision of standardized-but complex services and historically,  they were built around highly-credentialed professional  groups such as law, accounting and medicine. More recent  additions include advertising, consulting and PR. Examples  include PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG and some of the  world-class hospitals.  

The third type of clever organization is the ‘Clever  Collective’. These are much more freewheeling organizations,  built on know-how rather than the effi ciencies of Clever Inc.,  and on networks rather than the hierarchies of Clever Services.  Examples include Google and Microsoft, but you can find  Clever Collectives buried within more established organizations  as diverse as Johnson & Johnson, Roche and Oracle.  

We believe that leading clever people is one of the greatest  challenges facing organizations today. It requires huge  personal sacrifice and humility on the part of the leader, but  happily, it is also one of the most satisfying roles a leader can  perform, because it is about working with the most talented  individuals – people who are capable of incredible things. As  you can imagine, the challenges of leading the M & A Team at  Nestle, the doctors in a top hospital or the people producing  the next Google breakthrough are quite varied. Leadership is  always contextual, as is cleverness.  

In the end, cleverness is not some sort of elixir of life, but  the curiosity that is fundamental to it is the essential lifeblood  of the modern organization. Understanding, organizing, leading  and maximizing this is a great challenge. In the clever  economy, only the curious will thrive.  

Characteristics of Clever People

1.  Their cleverness is central to their identity. What they do is not some last-minute career choice, it is who they are. They are defined by their passion, not by their organization.
2. Their skills are not easily replicated. If they were, clevers would not be the scarce resource they are. Once upon a time, competitive advantage came because your product was slightly better or produced more cheaply; now it often comes through the collective efforts of the clever people in your organization.
3. They know their worth. The tacit skills of clever people are closer to the craft skills of the medieval period than they are to the codifiable and communicable skills that characterized the Industrial Revolution. This means you can’t transfer the knowledge without the people, and clever people know the value of this.
4. They ask difficult questions. Knowing your worth means that you are more willing to challenge and question. In particular, clevers instinctively challenge what came before them.
5. They are not impressed by corporate hierarchy. Clever people claim that they do not want to be led; and they are absolutely certain that they don’t want to be managed. They are also likely more concerned with what their professional peers think of them than their boss.
6. They expect instant access. As a leader, if you’re not there when the clevers come calling, don’t expect them to wait patiently in line; clever people have a very low boredom level.
7. They want to be connected to other clever people. Clever people cannot function in an intellectual vacuum. Typically, they possess only part of a clever solution – an important part, but one that requires the input of other clevers to come to life.

yackattack:

Raw Quesadilla with Flaxseed Tortilla & Cashew Cheese

Happy Raw Wednesday, everyone! I hope that everyone has had a great first half of the week so far, and that you’ve been eating delicious food items (I know that I have!). Here’s a great recipe for a raw quesadilla and it can be found over at Vegan Yack Attack!

Yum. A possible menu item.

Great desert

My goal is to have the best tacos in the world and create 5,000 jobs in the next 10 years opening and franchising new Dirty Dawwg Taco kitchens. I will keep everyone posted. I encourage your advice on this journey. Stay tuned.

fooodbabies:

                    
Add spices like ginger, cinnamon, cumin, tumeric, chili powder, mustard and cayenne to your meals. This will help boost your metabolism up to 25% and you can lose up to 50 calories by just eating it! It will also make you feel fuller faster, and will cause you to drink more water which is what most of us struggle with!

capturedcravings:

Brie and Brisket Tacos with a Mango Barbecue Sauce

cravingfoodallday: looks great

tacos

Dirty Dawwg Tacos are so damn dirty good…FO SHO!!!