Kakistocracy: You Asked for It

FCC Chair Ajit Pai Unmasked Psychopath?

Many have accused FCC Chairman Ajit Pai of being a telecom shill between his background as a former Verizon lawyer and his determination to ignore all public input (not to mention complaints about comment bots) as he kills net neutrality. And apparently, his attempts at joking about it are only reinforcing those views. Gizmodo has obtained video of Pai trying to roast himself at the Federal Communications Bar Association’s annual event, including a pre-recorded skit where an actual Verizon executive (senior VP Kathy Grillo) talks about wanting to “brainwash and groom a Verizon puppet” to become the FCC chairman, with Pai responding that it sounds like an “awesome” idea.

Aside from the jokes falling flat, there are all kinds of problems with the routine. To start, FCC officials shouldn’t be joking about being shills. Whether or not they have industry backgrounds (like former Chairman Tom Wheeler), they’re supposed to take corruption allegations seriously instead of turning them into comedy sketches. The humor fails in part because there’s a painful degree of truth to it — it wouldn’t have come up if Pai weren’t pursuing the exact deregulation policies that major telecoms want. And crucially, telecom executives shouldn’t ever be involved. If anything, Grillo’s inclusion in the skit supports accusations that Pai is on the take, since he’s clearly cozy enough with Verizon to recruit one of its VPs for a gag.

For that matter, why would a Verizon executive agree to appear in a skit that makes light of corruption, especially knowing that the video might become public and damage the company’s reputation?

Excerpt from “FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ‘jokes’ about being a Verizon shill” by Joe Fingas, December 9, 2017

 

Psychopath TEST Politicians
DomesticEnemies.Org

.

.

Advertisements

Kakistocracy: “Government by the worst people.”

If we were watching a satirical TV series in which the President of the USA re-tweeted deeply offensive messages without checking their veracity or source, the ability to switch off the screen or choose a different programme might make the events seem like a poorly written script. Because the show would have been poking fun at the so called leader of the free world in an extremely far-fetched manner, some of us might enjoy the programme despite its absurdity. If the programme gained enough popularity, the real life President might even be asked if he had ever been tempted to tweet something outrageous and no doubt the real President would turn that into a joke and move on to the much more important issues such as how to deal with poverty and healthcare, how to ensure that all US citizens feel equal despite the colour of the skin or their gender and how to deal with matters across the rest of the free world.

The fact that this is not satire and Trump has chosen to defend himself by suggesting he is not the problem and has called on his press team to claim the real problem is the rest of the world shows just how weird life has become. This is particularly disturbing when in real life, men and women in various positions have lost their jobs for the unprofessional use of social media. Meanwhile back in the UK the recently resigned Secretary of State for International Development has just proposed improving our prospects of a clean Brexit by telling the rest of the EU to “sod off”. This sort of language in public from a leader in virtually any other profession would at the very least bring a reprimand to the person concerned, however the voters in Witham are in no position to challenge Ms Patels words, even though she is paid to represent them. Elsewhere in our country a previous leader of the Conservative Party who was Home Secretary for 4 years and is qualified as a QC has just had a conviction quashed for failing to complete a form correctly, even though he did not fill it out as he should. While he did not design the form himself, it is one of the documents that his old department were responsible for creating. The numbers of people who have been denied justice or benefits because they have failed to complete badly designed forms properly, runs into tens of thousands. Their position in life and wealth however mean that unlike Michael Howard, most simply had to take such matters on the chin.

The truth is that the behaviour of a select group of our political leaders has reached a level that is so low, it is hard to imagine that things could get any worse. A recent analysis of the House of Lords identified around 90 Peers who had voted or asked questions less than 5 times in the year, yet between them had claimed over £500,000, so along with the privilege of being a member of the upper House they have each benefited from an average of £6,000 of public money for their attendance and other expenses. Along with the examples above there are numerous cases such as those of Boris Johnson, Michael Fallon, Damien Green etc who have brought their previously high office into disrepute. Yet behind these people or perhaps above them, there are many MPs, Peers, Councillors and MEPs whose hard work on our account barely gets a mention on TV or in the newspapers. It seems as though we need some way of truly holding our representatives to account and rewarding those who distinguish themselves by working hard in their roles. One person whose name comes to my mind is Frank Field who was elected in 1979 so he has been an MP for 38 years which is a huge length of time. Although I have disagreed with him on many occasions, he has achieved a huge amount of good. The same could be said for the current group of MPs in our City who between them have served a mere 10 years as MPs but all seem to work hard for our city. At a more local level, Tracey Hill is an extremely hard working Councillor in my ward and peers such as Tanni Grey-Thompson and Janet Whitaker do a stirling job on the red benches. They are of course not alone and many others could be listed. It seems that we need to find a way of applauding their hard work, just as we need a way of dismissing those who take unreasonable advantage of their position in our nation and bring the roles into disrepute.

LikeLike

ianchisnall

If we were watching a satirical TV series in which the President of the USA re-tweeted deeply offensive messages without checking their veracity or source, the ability to switch off the screen or choose a different programme might make the events seem like a poorly written script. Because the show would have been poking fun at the so called leader of the free world in an extremely far-fetched manner, some of us might enjoy the programme despite its absurdity. If the programme gained enough popularity, the real life President might even be asked if he had ever been tempted to tweet something outrageous and no doubt the real President would turn that into a joke and move on to the much more important issues such as how to deal with poverty and healthcare, how to ensure that all US citizens feel equal despite the colour of the skin or their…

View original post 636 more words

A Narcissist, a Psychopath, and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar…

The bartender asks, ‘who has the darkest personality out of you three?’ The Narcissist says ‘me’, the Psychopath says, ‘I don’t care’ and the Mach says ‘it’s whoever I want it to be’.

All embarrassing jokes aside, the Dark Triad of Personality rather ominously named, is an area of Psychological research which is attracting significant attention. It is however only a young field, in fact, it was just over a decade ago that Paulhus and Williams (2002) coined the term ‘Dark Triad’. It’s an area of research that seems to intrigue Organisational, Clinical and Forensic Psychologists alike and of course, has important implications for society as a whole. However, is there any real merit, use and/or empirical rigour in the study of these traits? I was inspired to delve a little deeper into the Dark Triad after last month’s blog on office politics, which touched on certain characteristics which fall within the remit of these traits i.e. manipulating others for self gain.

So what does the Dark Triad consist of?

Narcissism: characterised by grandiosity, entitlement, dominance, and superiority (Corry, Merritt, Mrug, & Pamp, 2008). The scale largely used to measure this trait is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979).

Psychopathy: characterised by high levels of impulsivity and thrill-seeking along with low levels of empathy (Hare, 1985). It has been described as the most ‘malevolent’ of the Dark Triad (Rauthmann, 2012). The scale which is largely used in the literature to measure Psychopathy is the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale, version III forthcoming (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare). It was modelled on the Psychopathy Check List (Hare, 1991), which is largely seen as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for the measurement of forensic Psychopathy.

Machiavellianism: characterised as being cynical, unprincipled and using manipulation of others for self-gain and life success (Jones & Palhaus, 2009). The scale which is most used to measure this construct is the Mach IV (Christie & Geis, 1970).

Global measures of the triad have recently been created such as the Dirty Dozen, a 12 item scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the Short Dark Triad, a 27 item scale (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, forthcoming).

Both Narcissism and Psychopathy have migrated from the clinical literature as personality disorders found in DSM-IV, whilst Machiavellianism has been distilled from the philosophy and tactics of Nicolo Machiavelli. In this instance, they have been applied to the sub-clinical population in much the same way as the Big Five personality factors. It is suggested that there are extreme personalities in our communities, which cross the boundary over into subclinical Dark Triad territory. In fact, a recent TED talk* highlighted the fact that as many as 1% of ‘normal people’ could be classed as a Psychopath, rising to 4% in CEO’s and business leaders.

Much of my research into the Dark Triad was precipitated by an excellent new review of the literature by Furnham, Richards & Paulhus (2013). Hence please refer to this for a more detailed account of this area. They do a particularly good job at highlighting the major outcomes which the Dark Triad predict, across the workplace, educational and evolutionary literature.

Focussing on workplace behaviours, they cite research which shows that while leaders who are high in such traits can be successful in navigating their way to the top (when coupled with high IQ and attractiveness, apparently), most eventually fall or derail in the end (Furnham, 2010). They are described by Hogan (2007) as being able to ‘get ahead’ but not ‘get along’ – which eventually comes back to haunt them. Specific behaviours include Narcissists’ softer methods of manipulation, while Psychopaths use harder, more direct methods and Machs are able to be flexible and switch between both methods (Jonason, Slomski, & Partyka, 2012). With extremely successful publications such as Snakes in Suits raising awareness of Dark Triad traits and behaviours, leadership derailment and management style are more relevant and important than ever.

In terms of specifics, research indicates that Psychopaths tend to make negative impressions in short meetings (Rauthman, 2012), while Machs have the most questionable morals and are most cynical towards others (Rauthman, 2012). Lastly, Narcissists believe themselves to be good leaders, with high emotional intelligence even though they are perceived negatively by those around them (Petrides et al, 2011). Globally, however, all three Dark Triad traits exhibit a drive for ruthless self-advancement (Zuroff, Fournier, Patall, & Leybman, 2010).

A word of warning; whereas Psychopaths react aggressively to physical threat, Narcissists do so to ego-threat (Jones & Palhaus, 2010). However, Machs are more deliberate and cautious as to how they react and respond as they don’t give into temptation as easily as the other two typically do (Williams, Nathanson & Paulhus, 2010). Therefore, when thinking about corporate crime, Jones et al (2012) suggest that it is the Mach who is unhindered by the impulsivity of the Psychopath, and displays of hedonism of the Narcissist to be the most successful perpetrator of white-collar crimes.

All jokes aside, the next time you face an aggressive bully, you could be dealing with a Psychopath. The next time you face an overtly arrogant manager, you could be dealing with a Narcissist. And finally, the next time you find yourself manoeuvred out of an opportunity, you may have just been made a victim of a Mach’s manipulation. The Dark Triad does exist, perhaps in all of us. However, in the vast majority of us, they do so to a much lesser extent than that 1% of the population that they truly manifest themselves in.

Written by Raj Chopra, TPF committee member.

Follow me on Twitter: @Raj_Chopra24, follow TPF on Twitter: @TPF_UK.

• TED Talk on Psychopaths by Jon Ronson: http://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_strange_answers_to_the_psychopath_test.html

References

Christie, R. C., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic press.

Corry, N., Merritt, R. D., Mrug, S., & Pamp, B. (2008). The factor structure of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 593–600.

Furnham, A. (2010). The Elephant in the Boardroom: The Causes of Leadership Derailment. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. & Paulhus, D.L. (2013) The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7/3, 199–216,

Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jonason, P. K., Slomski, S., & Partyka, J. (2012). The Dark Triad at work: How toxic employees get their way. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 449–453.

Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 93–108). New York: Guilford.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–18.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. forthcoming. Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personalities. Manuscript under review.

Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. forthcoming. Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) Scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Paulhus, D. L, & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.

Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., & Veselka, L. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence and the Dark Triad of personality. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 14, 35–41.

Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal perception: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 487–496.

Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Identifying and profiling scholastic cheaters: Their personality, cognitive ability, and motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 293–307.

Zuroff, D. C., Fournier, M. A., Patall, E. A., & Leybman, M. J. (2010). Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain. Canadian Psychology, 51, 58–66.

Reblogged from: A Narcissist, a Psychopath and a Machiavellian Walk into a Bar…  by Raj Chopra, June 23, 2013

 

Psychopath TEST Politicians

 

.